PRINCETON,    N.    J. 


Division .  Jj.  O, .  I.  A  .J  .J 
^/i^// Number .9:  O.p.y..]... 


/ 


I  \ 


COMMENTARIES 


THE   LAWS 


ANCIENT    HEBREWS; 


AN  INTRODUCTORY  ESSAY  ON  CIVIL  SOCIETY  AND 
GOVERNMENT. 


E.  C.  WINES,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

PRESIDENT   OF   THE   CITY   UNIVERSITY   OP   ST.   L0DI3. 


PRESBYTEKIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION, 

PHILADELPHIA. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1853,  by 
GEO.  P.  PUTNAM  &  CO., 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
Southern  District  of  New  York. 


PREFACE 


Next  to  the  birth  and  mission  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  exist 
ence  and  institutions  of  the  Hebrew  people  are  the  most 
important  event  in  universal  historj.  The  founder  of  Ju- 
daism and  the  founder  of  Christianity  are  the  two  persons, 
whose  lives  and  labors  have  most  extensively  and  power- 
fully influenced  the  progress  and  destiny  of  the  human 
race.  The  truths  which  they  revealed,  the  doctrines  which 
they  taught,  have  entered  as  the  profoundest  element  into 
the  civilization  of  mankind.  While  saving  individuals,  they 
have  been  the  true  power  of  nations,  acting  at  once  as  the 
most  vivifying  and  the  most  conservative  principle  in  human 
affairs. 

It  is  only  with  the  institutions  of  the  former  of  these 
illustrious  personages,  that  the  present  work  is  concerned. 
The  polity  of  Moses  has  a  twofold  importance.  It  is  im- 
portant, first,  from  the  perfection  of  wisdom,  in  which  the 
work  was  accomplished ;  but  still  more  important,  secondly, 
from   its   consequences  to  the  world.      These   consequences 


coming  time.  Christianity  itself  sprang  from  the  bosom 
of  Judaism.  "Without  the  religion  of  Moses,  the  religion 
of  Christ  never  would  have  been  given  to  the  world.  It 
is,  therefore,  in  a  certain  sense,  undoubtedly  true,  that  we 
owe  to  the  Mosaic  code  the  greater  part  of  the  light,  whicli 
we  this  day  enjoy.  Especially  are  we  indebted  to  this  code 
for  a  precious  truth,  which  reason,  left  to  itself,  has  never 
yet  discovered ;  I  mean  the  doctrine  of  the  nnity  of  God. 
By  the  possession  of  this  truth,  a  large  portion  of  the  human 
family  have  been  happily  rescued  from  the  errors  and  im- 
moralities, to  which  the  belief  in  many  gods  invariably 
leads. 

The  fulluwing  treause  is  an  attempt  to  analyze,  and  to 
develope  systematically,  the  civil  polity  of  the  inspired 
Hebrew  lawgiver.  The  civil  government  of  the  ancient 
Hebrews  was  the  government  of  a  free  people ;  it  was  a 
government  of  laws ;  it  was  a  system  of  self-government. 
It  was  not  only  the  first,  but  the  only  government  of  an- 
tiquity, to  which  this  description  is  fully  applicable.  To 
Moses,  a  man  of  the  most  direct,  firm,  and  positive  spirit, 
belongs  the  honor  of  being  the  founder  of  this  sort  of 
government.  His  constitution  was  pervaded  with  popular 
synipathies  and  the  spirit  of  liberty.  The  best  wisdom  of 
modern  times  in  the  difficult  science  of  legislation  was  an- 
ticipated by  Moses.  The  moderns  are  not  real  discoverers ; 
they  have  but  propagated  and  applied  truths  and  prin- 
ciples, established  by  the  first,  the  wisest,  the  ablest  of 
legislators.      In  an  age  of  barbarism   and  tyranny,  Moses 


PREFACE.  V 

Bolved  the  problem  how  a  people  could  be  self-governed, 
and  yet  well  governed ;  bow  men  could  be  kept  in  order, 
and  still  be  free;  and  how  the  liberty  of  the  individual 
could  be  reconciled  with  the  welfare  of  the  community. 

The  true  character  of  the  Hebrew  constitution  is  not 
well  understood.  Nor  is  the  want  of  full  and  accurate 
information  concerning  it  matter  of  wonder.  The  cause 
of  this  ignorance  has  been  suggested  by  Salvador,  During 
the  long  period,  when  the  words  people,  law,  equality, 
national  utility,  intellectual  superiority,  independence,  and 
regular  legislation,  scarcely  found  a  place  in  any  living 
language,  how  could  Moses  find  his  true  place  and  his 
just  estimation?  The  people  were  too  ignorant  to  study 
him,  and  their  tyrants  would  have  felt  their  pride  and 
oppression  rebuked  by  his  ardent  republicanism.  But 
times  are  changed.  Everywhere  the  need  of  a  better  and 
juster  political  organization  is  felt.  Everywhere  there  is 
developed  a  strong  tendency  towards  popular  freedom  and 
power.  Everywhere  an  irresistible  impulse  is  urging  na- 
tions to  substitute  for  the  arbitrary,  capricious,  and  incon- 
stant government  of  men,  the  just  and  stable  government 
of  laws.  The  more  this  state  of  things  developes  itself,  the 
more  the  principles  of  reason,  justice,  equality,  liberty, 
and  public  utility,  take  possession  of  men's  minds,  and 
assert  their  power  over  human  affairs,  the  more  will  tlie 
polity  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  become  an  object  of 
.study,  of  interest,  of  admiration,  and  of  imitation.  And 
the  more  this   constitution  is   studied,  the  more  will   it  be 


vi  PREFACE. 

recognised  as  a  free  constitution ;  a  constitution  embody 
ing  all  the  great  principles  of  political  wisdom ;  a  consti- 
tution, on  several  points,  in  advance  even  of  the  age  in 
which  we  live. 

The  basis  of  the  following  inquiries  into  the  polity  and 
laws  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  was  a  course  of  lectures,  de- 
livered in  several  Theological  Seminaries,  and  in  many  of 
the   principal    cities   of   the   Union.      Ten    years   ago,   the 
author  was   invited   to  deliver  one  of  a  course  of  lectures 
before   the   Mercantile  Library   Company   of  Philadelphia. 
Archbishop   Hughes   had   already   given   a   lecture   of   the 
same  course  on   Pope  Pius  YH.     As  the  learned   prelate 
had  selected,  for  eulogy,  a  dignitary  of  the  Romish  church, 
that  circumstance  led  me  to  choose,  for  the  theme  of  my 
discourse,   a   dignitary   of  the   church   universal.      Accord- 
ingly,  I   took   '•  Moses   and   his   Laws."    The  lecture  was 
well  received  by  the  public,  and  brought  a  formal  invita- 
tion from  many  of  the  leading  citizens  of  Philadelphia, — 
divines,  lawyers,  savans,  and  others, — that  I  would  extend 
the  discussion,  and  give  a  series  of  discourses  on  the  same 
subject.     In  making  the   necessary  preparation  to  comply 
with    this   invitation,   I  became    enamored  of   the    theme. 
The   investigation   became  a  labor  of  love  with  me.    The 
increasing   light,   afforded    by   my  researches,   led    me,   at 
different  times,  to  rewrite  and  enlarge  the  discussion ;  till, 
at  length,   it   came   to   be   embodied   in   a  very   extended 
series   of   lectures.      The    substance   of    these    lectures,   in 
courses  more  or  less  comprehensive,  wes    given,  as  above 


PREFACE.  VU 

Btated,  in  various  Theological  Seminaries,  bj  invitation 
from  the  Trustees  and  Professors,  and  in  many  other  places, 
at  the  request  of  citizens  of  the  highest  respectability.  In 
this  form,  the  author's  illustrations  of  the  constitution  and 
laws  of  Israel  had  the  good  fortune  to  meet  the  approba- 
tion of  gentlemen,  both  in  church  and  state,  whose  good 
opinion  might  well  be  an  object  of  pride  to  persons  of 
literary  pretensions,  far  higher  than  his. 

The  present  work  is  complete  in  itself.  It  has  a  beginning, 
a  middle,  and  an  end  ;  in  other  words,  it  is  characterized  by 
unity  of  design.  It  is  an  analysis  of  the  political  constitu- 
tion, the  jus  publicum,  of  the  Hebrews.  It  treats  of  a 
particular  department  of  the  Hebrew  institutions  ;  but  there 
are  other  parts  of  those  institutions,  which  it  does  not  touch. 
Hebrew  jurisprudence,  properly  so  called,  a  wide,  rich,  and 
inviting  field,  it  does  not  enter  upon  at  all.  This  is  reserved 
for  a  separate  work.  My  lectures  embraced  the  latter  class 
of  topics,  as  well  as  the  former.  Ample  materials,  therefore, 
have  been  collected  for  the  illustration  of  the  private  law  of 
the  Hebrews  ;  and  these  materials  have  been,  to  a  considera- 
ble extent,  arranged  for  publication.  Should  the  present 
work  meet  with  favor,  another,  if  life  and  health  are  spared, 
will  in  due  time  follow.  The  second  volume  will  contain  a 
detailed  elucidation  of  the  jurisprudence  of  Moses.  His 
whole  system  of  laws  will  be  reduced  to  a  classification, 
formed  on  the  basis  of  Blackstone's  division  of  the  laws  of 
England.  Each  individual  enactment  will  be  examined, 
with  reference  both  to  its  intrinsic  character  and  the  reasons 
on  which  it  was  based  ;  whether  those  reasons  relate  to  the  gen- 


Vlll  PKEFACE. 

eral  wants  of  humanity,  or  to  the  adaptation  of  the  code  to 
times  and  circumstances.  A  prominent  design  of  this  work 
will  be  to  institute  comparisons,  all  along,  between  the  juris- 
prudence of  Moses  and  the  jurisprudence  of  other  enlightened 
nations,  both  ancient  and  modern.  A  sufiBciently  extended 
research  into  the  laws  and  constitutions  of  the  civilized  world 
might  make  this  one  of  the  most  interesting,  instructive,  and 
useful  features  of  the  proposed  treatise. 

The  greatest  difficulty  I  have  encountered  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  these  sheets  for  the  press,  is  the  want  of  books.  There 
are  many  works,  of  high  respectability,  relating  to  Hebrew 
history  and  law,  not  found,  as  far  as  I  know,  in  any  of  the 
public  or  private  libraries  in  the  United  States.  The  works 
of  this  kind,  which  are  found  in  our  libraries,  are  very  widely 
scattered.  I  have  sometimes  had  to  travel  hundreds  of  milea 
to  examine  a  single  book,  and  have  been  well  repaid  for  my 
labor.  My  cordial  thanks  are  due  to  various  library  associa- 
tions, and  not  a  few  private  gentlemen,  for  the  loan  of  books. 
Among  the  former  I  would  name  Harvard  University,  the 
Boston  Athenaeum,  Columbia  College,  the  Franklin  Library 
Company  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  Mercantile  Library  Asso- 
ciation of  New  York.  This  last  named  institution  has  been 
particularly  liberal,  allowing  me  to  take  any  number  of  books, 
and  keep  them  any  length  of  time  free  of  cost ;  and  has 
even  offered  to  purchase  such  works  as  I  might  want,  which 
are  not  already  in  its  extensive,  well  selected,  and  invalua- 
ble library.  And,  with  respect  to  future  researches,  my 
special  thanks  are  due  to  David  Banks,  Esq.,  of  New  York, 
for  his  generous  offer  of  the  unlimited  use  of  his  very  extern 


PREFACE.  IX 

sive  collection  of  law  books,  ancient  and  modern,  foreign  and 
domestic. 

It  would  be  easy  to  mate  here  an  ambitious  display  of 
learning  in  an  enumeration  of  the  works  examined  in  the 
progress  of  these  inquiries ;  but  that  would  serve  less  the 
purposes  of  utility,  than  of  pedantry.  The  authorities  relied 
upon  are  pretty  copiously  referred  to  in  the  accompanying 
notes ;  for  I  hold  it  to  be  a  chief  element  of  value  in  any 
scientific  or  philosophical  work,  to  point  out  to  those  who 
may  wish  to  extend  their  researches  in  reference  to  the  topics 
treated,  the  sources  of  that  increased  light,  which  they  desire. 

The  author  cannot  pretend  to  anything  like  perfection,  or 
freedom  from  error,  in  his  treatment  of  a  subject  so  ancient, 
so  extensive,  so  difficult,  and  involving  so  laborious  a  search 
into  constitutions  and  laws,  as  the  polity  of  the  Hebrew  com- 
monwealth. He  has  diligently  sought  for  truth  ;  and,  in 
respect  to  fundamentals,  he  believes  that  he  has  found  it. 
Let  the  candid  reader  weigh  the  evidence  adduced,  and  judge 
for  himself.  At  any  rate,  whatever  estimate  may  be  placed 
upon  his  own  individual  labors,  if  his  work  shall  have  a  ten- 
dency to  awaken  in  any  minds  an  interest  in  Biblical  studies  ; 
to  remove  from  them  sceptical  doubts  concerning  the  di- 
vine origin  and  authority  of  the  Old  Testament  scriptures ; 
to  impress  them  with  a  sense  of  the  dignity  and  value  of 
those  ancient  compositions ;  and  to  convince  them  of  the 
world's  obligation  to  the  Bible  in  promoting  the  civil  liberty 
and  social  happiness  of  mankind, — he  will  feel,  that  he  has 
not  labored  in  vain. 

East  Hampton,  L.  I.,  March,  1853. 


ADVERTISEMENT  BY  THE  PUBLISHERS. 


In  his  Preface,  the  author  states,  that  the  following  trea- 
tise was  originally  written  in  the  form  of  lectures,  and 
delivered  to  students  in  Theological  Seminaries,  and  to  mis- 
cellaneous audiences,  in  many  of  our  cities.  In  this  form, 
his  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  the  Hebrews  everywhere 
met  with  acceptance,  and  were  applauded  by  competent 
judges.  In  sending  the  work  forth  in  a  printed  volume,  the 
publishers  deem  it  proper  to  accompany  it  with  a  few  of  the 
recommendations  bestowed  upon  it,  when  given  as  lectures. 
They  ought  to  state,  however,  that  some  of  the  opinions  ap- 
pended were  given,  after  examining  the  manuscript  as  pre- 
pared for  the  press. 


From  the  Hon.  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  of  New  York. 

"  The  lectures  of  Professor  "Wines  on  the  polity  of  the  Hebrew 
Ck)mmonwealth  are  distinguished  by  a  most  thorough  acquaintance 
with  the  subject,  and  by  the  clear  and  strong  light  in  which  they 
place  the  divine  mission  of  the  great  Hebrew  lawgiver,  and  the  incom- 
parable wisdom  and  usefulness  of  his  institutions.  They  are  full  of 
important  and  valuable  information  to  all  classes." 


ADVERTISEMENT   BY    THE   PUBLISHEES. 

From  Hiram  Ketchum,  Esq.,  of  New  York,  after  examining  portions 
of  the  work,  as  prepared  fw  the  press. 

"  It  is  a  great  work  ;  profoundly  philosophical ;  and  clear  as 
crystal.  I  feel  persuaded  that  it  will  have  an  extensive  sale.  It  will 
be  sought  after  by  the  legal  as  well  as  the  clerical  profession." 


From  ilm  Hon.  William  Kent,  of  New  York. 

"  The  lectures  of  Mr.  Wines  on  the  laws  and  polity  of  the 
Hebrews  appeared  to  me  very  learned  and  able.  They  have  given 
him  a  high  character  among  scholars  and  students  of  history." 


From  George  Wood,  Esq.,  of  New  York. 

"  Dear  Sir  : — I  have  read  with  pleasure  the  manuscript  of  your 

Essay  on  Civil  Society  and  Government.     I  have  been  gratified  with 

finding  that  your  views  concur  in  the  main  with  my  own.     I   think 

the  publication  of  the  work  might  be  very  useful.     There  is  a  por- 

tion  of  the  religious  class  of  the  community,  mIio  have  imbibed  very 

erroneous  notions  upon  some  of  the  subjects  on  which  you  treat,  and 

I  think  the  general  perusal  of  your  production  will  have  a  tendency 

to  prevent  the  spread  of  those  errors. 

"  I  am,  Sir,  with  great  respect, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"  George  Wood." 
N.  Y.,  30th  June,  1851. 

The  Rev.  E.  C.  Wines. 


From  the  Hon.  Mitchell  King,  of  Charleston,  S.  C. 

"  The  philosophical  views  which  Professor  Wines  takes  of  the 
Hebrew  institutions,  the  order  and  connexion  in  which  he  groups 
them,  and  the  many  striking  analogies  which  he  traces  between  them 
and  our  own  laws  and  customs,  are  in  the  highest  degree  instructive 
and  interesting." 


ADVERTISEMI'.NT   Bl    THE   PUBLISHERS. 

From  the  late  Judge  Woodburt,  of  N.  Hampshire. 

"  Professor  Wines's  lectures  on  the  Jewish  polity  are  highly 
mteresting,  and  in  my  opinion  calculated  to  be  useful." 


From  the  late  Jeremiah  Mason,  of  Boston. 

"  I  HAVE  been  much  instructed  by  Mr.  Wines's  lectures  on  the 
Hebrew  polity  and  laws." 


From  the  Rev.  Dr.  Woods,  of  Andover. 

"  I  HAVE  heard  all  Professor  Wines's  lectures  on  the  Mosaic  in- 
stitutions, and  have  wished  that  they  might  be  extended  much 
further.  From  the  beginning  to  the  end,  they  exhibit  marks  of  ex- 
tensive, patient  study,  and  of  profound,  discriminating  thought. 
They  are,  I  think,  sound  in  principle,  and  strong  and  conclusive  in 
argument.  The  style  in  which  they  are  written  is  perspicuous  and 
forcible,  and  often  rises  to  animation  and  eloquence.  The  lectures 
cannot  fail  to  be  profitable  to  any  who  love  to  think  ;  but  they  are 
specially  adapted  to  be  interesting  to  men  engaged  in  the  professions 
of  law  and  theology,  to  the  different  classes  of  students,  and  most  of 
all,  to  those  who  are  seeking  for  a  clear  insight  into  the  Mosaic 
scriptures,  and  who  wish  to  see  the  various  principles  involved  in 
them  clearly  stated,  and  triumphantly  vindicated  against  the  subtle 
objections  and  profane  sneers  of  infidel  philosophy." 


From  the  Rev.  Drs.  Pond,  Shepard,  and  Smith,  Professors  in  the 
Theological  Seminary,  Bangor,  Me. 

"  Having  had  the  privilege  of  attending  Professor  Wines's  full 
course  of  lectures  on  the  institutions  of  Moses,  we  cannot  forbear 
expressing  how  much  we  have  been  interested  and  instructed.  Mr. 
Wines  discusses  the  subject  ably,  clearly,  and  forcibly.  He  tho- 
roughly  vindicates  the  Jewish  lawgiver. from  the  objections  of  infidels, 
and  shows  how  much  the  world,  in  ail  subsequent  ages,  has  been  in- 
debted to  his  writings." 


SIV  ADVERTISEMENT   BY   THE   PUBLISHERS. 

From  Rev.  G,  W.  Bethuke,  D.D.  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

"  The  lectures  of  Professor  Wines  on  the  Jewish  polity  are  con- 
ceived in  a  liberal  and  philosophical  spirit,  and  are  written  with 
thorough  scholarship  and  learning.  They  are  elaborate,  compre- 
hensive, and  interesting,  showing  great  research  and  aptness  in  the 
lecturer.  His  plan  is  novel,  and  his  inferences  logically  drawn,  and 
practically  useful." 


From  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  W.  Yeomans,  of  Pennsylvania. 

"  Professor  Wines  presents,  in  a  compendious  and  impressive 
form,  a  philosophical  view  of  the  Hebrew  polity,  which  makes  the 
legislation  of  Moses  appear,  as  it  truly  is,  the  most  wonderful  and 
instructive  system  of  legislation  the  world  has  ever  seen." 


From  Francis  L.  Hawks,  D.  D.,  of  New  York. 

"From  the  examination  T  have  been  able  to  give  the  work  of  Mr. 
Wines  on  the  laws  and  polity  of  the  Hebrews,  I  think  that  it  is 
characterized  by  signal  ability,  and  that  its  publication  cannot  but  be 
useful." 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Introductory  Essay  on  Civil  Society  and  Government     .        .       17 
BOOK    I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Introductory  Observations — Nature  and  Plan  of  the  Work — 
Claims  of  the  Hebrew  Law  to  our  Study  and  Eegard — The 
Question  whether  the  Mosaic  Laws  were  binding  upon  other 
Nations  than  the  Hebrews  considered         .         .        ,         .101 

CHAPTER  II. 
Moses  as  a  Man  and  a  Lawgiver 125 

CHAPTER  in. 
Uncertainty  of  early  Profane  History 140 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Credibility  of  Moses  as  an  Historian      .....     166 

CHAPTER  V. 
Divine  Legation  of  Moses      , 223 

CHAPTER  VL 
Objections  Considered  and  Answered 256 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Influence  of  the  Laws  and  Writings  of  Moses  on  the  subse- 
quent Civilization  of  the  World 302 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
Review  of  the  leading  Constitutions  of  Gentile- Antiquity,  with 
special  reference  to  the  Question,  how  far  Civil  Liberty  was 
secured  by  thena 341 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Geograpliical  Limits  and  Population  of  Palestine    .         .         .     376 

BOOK    II. 

ORGANIC  LAW  OF  THE  HEBREW  STATE. 

CHAPTER  L 
Fundamental  Principles 393 

CHAPTER  IL 
The  Hebrew  Theocracy 456 

CHAPTER  m. 
General  Idea  of  the  Hebrew  Constitution        ....     487 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Hebrew  Chief  Magistrate        ......     535 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Hebrew  Senate 574 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Hebrew  Commons 588 

CHAPTER  Vn. 
The  Hebrew  Oracle 597 

CPIAPTER  VIII. 
The  Hebrew  Priesthood 609 

CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Hebrew  Prophets 622 

CHAPTER  X. 
Conclusioi    . 632 


INTEODUCTOEY   ESSAY 


CIVIL    SOCIETY  ANB  GOVERNMENT 


The  design  of  this  introductory  essay  is  to  inquire  into  tho 
origin  and  foundation  of  civil  society  and  government ;  to 
unfold  the  nature,  sources,  and  sanctions  of  political  power ; 
and  to  establish  some  general  principles  of  polity,  law,  and 
administration. 

I^ext  in  importance  to  the  science  of  religion,  which 
teaches  our  relations  to  the  Creator,  and  the  science  of 
morality,  which  explains  our  relations  to  our  fellow  men,  is 
the  science  of  government,  which  unfolds  our  relations  and 
duties  as  members  of  civil  society.  There  is,  indeed,  a 
beautiful  alliance  between  theology,  ethics,  and  juris- 
prudence. These  sciences  have  a  common  origin,  a  common 
basis,  and  a  common  end.*  The  science  of  legislation,  in 
effect,  embraces  our  relations  to  God,  to  individual  man,  and 
to  society.  It  includes  within  itself  the  most  important  prin- 
ciples of  religion,  morality,  and  law.  No  subject  can  more 
worthily  engage  the  attention  of  a  rational  being ;  a  being 
who  has  the  happiness  of  himself  and  his  species  at  heart. 

*  Translator's  Pref.  to  Burlamaqui's  Principles  of  Natural  and  Politic 
Law 

2 


IH  IITTRODUCTORY   ESS  4.Y, 

Tlie  true  origin  of  civil  government  and  its  ultimate 
foundation,  undoubtedly  lie  in  the  will  of  God.  Govern- 
ment is,  therefore,  a  divine  institution,  Reason,  revelation, 
and  the  best  human  authority,  concur  in  enforcing  this 
conclusion.  Let  us  interrogate  each  of  these  teachers  in 
turn. 

What,  in  the  first  place,  is  the  testimony  of  reason,  that 
faculty  of  the  soul,  whose  high  office  it  is  to  investigate  the 
mutual  relations  of  things,  to  compare  these  relations 
together,  and  thence  to  infer  just  principles  for  forming  our 
belief,  and  guiding  our  conduct  ? 

The  exact  point  we  are  now  in  search  of  is,  whether  it  be 
the  will  of  God,  that  laws  should  be  instituted  among  men  ; 
the  manner  of  their  enactment  will  be  inquired  into  here- 
after. 

1.  Tlie  aptitude  of  our  nature  for  goverament  is  a  clear 
indication  of  the  divine  origin  of  government.*  Man  is 
endowed  with  understanding  and  choice,  sensible  of  pleasure 
and  pain,  and  adapted  to  be  moved  by  the  expectation  of 
rewards  and  punishments.  The  possession  of  such  powers 
and  susceptibilities  indicates  a  purpose,  just  as  the  structure 
of  the  eye  and  the  ear  shows  that  these  organs  were 
designed  for  sight  and  hearing.  For  why  should  the  Deity 
give  us  a  nature  so  exactly  suited  to  the  reception  of  laws, 
if  he  had  intended  that  none  should  ever  be  made  for  us? 
This  would  be  creating  so  many  useless  faculties  ;  it  would 
be  instituting  an  admirable  system  of  means  to  no  end ;  and 
it  would,  therefore,  signify  a  waste  of  contrivance,  incon- 
sistent with  absolute  perfection. 

2.  An  examination  of  human  nature,  in  another  aspect  of 
't,  will  evince,  that  man  was  made  for  society,  and  con- 
sequently for  government  and  law  ;  for  without  these  society 
cannot  exist. f  Two  leading  principles  enter  as  elements  into 

*  Burlam.  Prin.  Nat.  Law,  Part  ii.,  Chap.  2. 

f  See  Bishop  Butler's  Sermons  on  Human  Nature. 


INTKODUCTOEY   ESSAY.  19 

yV^Q  soul  of  man ; — self-love  and  benevolence.  Self-love  is 
C  the  affection  which  one  has  for  himself.  Tliis  prompts  ns  to 
take  care  of  ourselves,  our  life,  our  health,  our  private 
interest.  Benevolence  is  a  disposition  to  friendship,  com- 
passion, love,  kindness.  It  is  an  affection  whose  aim  and 
end  is  the  good  of  others.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  principle  in  human  nature.  So  natural 
is  it  for  man  to  be  attracted  towards  man,  that  the  bare  fact 
of  having  trod  the  same  soil  and  breathed  in  the  same 
climate  becomes,  not  unfrequentlj,  the  occasion  of  contract- 
ing close  intimacies  and  friendships ;  the  occasion,  I  say ; 
for  the  real  tie  is  not  the  slight  relations  alluded  to  above, 
nor  any  others  like  them  ;  but  the  prior,  original,  deeply- 
seated  disposition  and  bias  of  our  nature  to  love  one  another. 

But  if  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  existence  of  tliis  principle 
in  man,  there  is  quite  as  little,  that  its  office  is  to  incite  us 
to  seek  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  society,  just  as  it  is  the 
office  of  self-love  to  incite  us  to  seek  our  own  good. 

Besides  benevolence,  there  are  other  principles  in  human 
nature,  which,  being  adapted  to  promote  the  good  of  society, 
are  a  clear  indication  that  man  was  designed  for  society  by 
the  Creator.  Such  are  the  desire  of  esteem  from  others,  the 
love  of  society  for  its  own  sake,  and  the  indignation  we  feel 
against  successful  vice.  These  affections  have  a  direct  rela- 
tion to  others.  They  incline  us  to  a  behavior  beneficial  to 
others.  Their  tendency  is  to  public  good ;  that  is  to  say,  the 
good  of  man  in  society.  Why  should  God  implant  in  us 
principles  having  an  immediate  respect  to  society,  why 
make  us  social  beings,  if  he  did  not  intend  us  for  the 
social  state  ?  To  affirm  that  he  did,  would  be  to  charge  him 
foolishly. 

There  is  still  another  principle  in  human  nature,  which 
points  the  same  way.  I  refer  to  that  faculty  by  which  men 
distinguish  between  their  own  actions,  approving  of  some, 
and   disapproving   of   others ;    the   faculty  of   conscience. 


20  INTRODUCTOKY   ESSAY. 

Tliat  this  faculty  tends  to  restrain  men  from  doing  mischief 
to  each  other,  and  leads  them  to  do  good,  is  too  manifest  to 
need  being  insisted  on.  Here,  then,  in  the  conscience,  we 
have  another  principle  of  our  nature,  which  has  quite  as 
close  a  relation  to  public  as  to  private  good.  The  existence 
of  this  principle  in  the  inward  frame  of  man  is  a  clear 
proof  that  the  Creator  intended  us  to  be  instruments  of  good 
to  one  another  by  living  in  society,  and  by  instituting  and 
obeying  such  laws  as  are  essential  to  the  being  and  welfare 
of  civil  communities. 

3.  The  divine  origin  of  government  may  be  argued,  ana- 
logically, from  the  constitution  of  the  material  universe. 
Look  at  the  harmony  of  the  visible  creation.  See  its  beauty, 
regularity,  order.  Every  object  is  relative  to  a  certain  end, 
and  these  particular  ends,  though  endlessly  diversified,  are 
so  combined  as  to  conspire  to  one  general  design.  Notwith- 
standing the  amazing  variety,  there  is  no  confusion.  The 
parts  of  the  universe  are  so  proportioned  and  balanced,  that 
while  each  preserves  its  proper  form,  place,  and  motion, 
together  they  make  an  harmonious  and  beautiful  whole.* 

Such  is  the  order  which  the  Supreme  Wisdom  has  estab- 
lished in  the  physical  world.  Can  we  contemplate  this  ad- 
mirable constitution,  and  persuade  ourselves,  that  the  Deity 
has  abandoned  the  moral  world  to  chance  and  disorder  ?  A 
wise  being,  in  all  his  actions,  proposes  a  reasonable  end,  and 
appoints  the  means  necessary  to  effect  it.  The  end  which 
God  has  in  view  with  respect  to  his  creatures,  is  their  per- 
fection and  happiness ;  and  his  plan  must  include  every 
thing  essential  to  such  a  design.  Most  evident  is  it  to  every 
reflecting  mind,  that  the  only  agency  adequate  to  the  end  in 
view,  is  the  institution  of  civil  society  and  government. 
Had  the  constitution  of  man  been  merely  physical,  God 
himself  would  have  done  whatever  was  expedient  for  the 
perfection  of  his  work  ;  as,  in  fact,  we  see  he  has  in  the  case 
*  Burlam.  Prin.  Nat.  Law,  Part  ii.,  Chap.  1. 


INTKODUCTORY   ESSAY.  21 

of  the  bee,  the  beaver,  and  the  other  creatures,  whose  mo- 
tions are  governed  by  pure  instinct.  But  man  is  an  intelli- 
gent being.  He  is  capable  of  deliberation  and  choice. 
The  means,  therefore,  by  which  the  Deity  designs  him  to  be 
'conducted  to  his  end,  must  be  adapted  to  his  rational 
nature,  which,  as  we  have  before  shown,  eminently  fit  him 
to  become  the  subject  of  government  and  law. 

4.  These  considerations  acquire  new  force,  when  we  attend 
to  the  consequences  of  the  opposite  doctrine.  What  would 
become  of  man,  were  every  individual  complete  master  of 
his  own  actions?  Caprice  and  passion  would  then  be  his 
chief  rules  of  conduct.  In  that  case,  most  of  our  faculties 
would  become  quite  useless.  Tlie  powers  of  reason,  judg- 
ment, reflection,  prudence,  conscience,  and  liberty  of  choice, 
form  the  true  dignity  of  our  nature.  But  to  what  purpose 
Bliould  we  be  endowed  with  these  noble  faculties,  if  we  were 
always  to  yield  to  first  impressions,  and  allowed  ourselves  to 
be  evermore  hurried  away  by  the  impulses  of  instinct  or 
the  force  of  blind  inclinations  ?  In  the  case  supposed,  the 
most  exalted  powers  of  the  soul  would  not  only  be  rendered 
futile,  but  would  become  hurtful  by  their  very  excellence  ; 
since  the  higher  any  faculty  is,  the  more  does  the  abuse  of  it 
become  dangerous.* 

To  leave  men  wholly  to  themselves,  is  to  leave  an  open 
field  to  the  passions.  Universal  license  would  inevitably 
draw  after  it  universal  licentiousness.  Injustice,  violence, 
and  perfidy  would  run  riot.  "Without  government,  mankind 
would  never  emerge  from  the  state  of  barbarism ;  nay,  they 
would  not  even  rise  above  the  condition  of  wild  beasts ;  and 
universal  war,  which  Ilobbes  imagined  to  be  the  necessary 
consequence  of  the  bad  principles  of  human  nature,  when 
not  held  in  check  by  despotism,  would,  indeed,  become  a 
terrible  reality.  We  must,  therefore,  have  recourse  to  other 
ideas.  We  must  conclude,  that  God,  having  created  man  foT 
*  Burlam.  Prin.  Nat.  Law,  Part  ii.,  Chap.  2. 


22  INTKODUCTOET   ESSAY. 

happiness,  liaving  implanted  in  him  a  desire  for  it,  having 
subjected  him  to  the  necessity  of  living  in  society,  and  hav- 
ing also  inspired  him  with  the  love  of  order,  intended,  at 
the  same  time,  that  he  should  be  subjected  to  the  restraints 
of  law. 

5.  This  last  observation  contains  a  thought  which  deserves 
to  be  expanded  into  a  distinct  argument  for  the  divine  origin 
of  government. 

As  there  are,  in  physical  science,  certain  axioms,  which 
serve  as  the  basis  of  all  its  deductions,  so  likewise,  in  moral 
and  political  science,  there  are  certain  elementary  principles, 
which  constitute  the  foundation  of  ethics  and  jurisprudence. 
These,  in  both  cases,  are  termed  first  truths,  because  they 
carry  their  own  evidence  along  with  them,  and  form  the  ulti- 
mate basis  of  all  reasoning.  They  are  the  dictate  of  pure 
reason,  independently  of  all  ratiocination.  Ilence,  by  an 
original  law  of  our  nature,  we  yield  our  assent  to  them  the 
moment  they  are  announced. 

These  first  principles  being  discoviei*ecl,  all  the  consequences 
flowing  from  them  by  fair  deduction,  are  as  certain  as  the 
principles  themselves.  It  is  only  necessary,  that  the  premises 
and  conclusions  be  properly  connected ;  the  whole  business 
being  to  deduce  the  one  from  the  other  by  a  train  of  logical 
reasoning. 

That  the  ultimate  end  of  man  is  happiness :  that  happi- 
ness cannot  consist  in  things  inconsistent  with  his  nature  ; 
that,  to  attain  happiness,  not  only  present  good  and  evil 
must  be  considered,  but  also  their  consequences ;  that  it  is 
unreasonable  to  pursue  a  present  good,  which  must  issue  in 
a  greater  evil,  but  quite  reasonable  to  bear  a  present  evil, 
which  must  issue  in  a  greater  good;  that  a  higher  good 
ought  ever  to  be  preferred  to  a  lower  one  ;  and  that  order  is 
more  excellent  than  disorder ;  these  are  all  first  truths. 
They  are  of  a  nature  to  compel  our  assent.*  They  liave  tho 
*  Burlam.  Prin.  Nat.  Law,  Part  ii.,  Chap.  2. 


rSTRODUCTOEY   ESSAY.  23 

same  self-evident  clearness  and  force,  as  the  axioms  of  math- 
ematical and  physical  science  ;  such  as  that  the  whole  is 
greater  than  any  of  its  parts  ;  that  things  which  are  equal 
to  the  same  things  are  equal  to  one  another  ;  that  every  effect 
must  be  preceded  by  an  adequate  cause  ;  and  the  like. 

These  principles  form  a  body  of  maxims,  drawn  from  the 
nature  of  things.  Being  engraved  on  our  heart  by  the  Cre- 
ator, whatever  lessons  they  inculcate  are  a  clear  indication 
of  his  will.  "Whither,  then,  do  they  look  ?  Plainly,  to  the 
establishment  of  civil  government,  as  indispensable  to  the 
attainment  of  man's  ultimate  end.  Tliat  end  is  happiness ; 
for  that  was  he  formed  and  fashioned ;  and  to  that  does  he 
direct  all  his  actions. 

The  true  happiness  of  every  being  consists  in  the  proper 
perfection  of  its  nature.  The  road  to  a  just  development  of 
human  nature  and  the  road  to  happiness  are  one  and  the 
same.  When  a  particular  system  of  means  is  adapted  to 
perfect  our  nature,  and  another  is  not,  it  is  evident  that  we 
are  bound  to  choose  the  former  and  reject  the  latter.  Tliis 
is  the  clear  verdict  of  reason  ;  and  the  language  of  right 
reason  is  the  voice  of  God.  Now,  nothing  is  more  certain 
than  that  civil  government  is  essential  to  the  perfection  of 
man's  nature.  It  is,  therefore,  a  necessary  means  to  the 
attainment  of  his  proper  happiness.  But  that,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  subordination,  doubtless,  to  the  divine  glory,  was 
the  final  cause  of  his  creation.  When  reason,  then,  informs 
us,  as  she  does,  that  the  discipline  of  laws  is  an  essential 
condition  of  human  happiness,  it  is  God  himself  who  speaks 
to  us  in  this  inward  oracle.  Thereby  he  gives  us  clearly  to 
understand,  that  government,  being  adapted  to  our  nature 
and  our  needs,  is,  at  the  same  time  and  for  the  same  reason, 
agreeable  to  his  will. 

6.  Tlie  contemplation  of  human  society,  as  an  able  living 
divine*  has  well  observed,  leads  directly  to  the  contempla- 

*  See  Rev.  Dr.  Lothrop's  Sermon  on  the  Death  of  the  late  Harrison  Gray 
Otis. 


2*  INTRODUCTORY   ESSAY. 

tion  and  acknowledgment  of  God  as  its  author.  We  look 
around  us,  and  behold  a  vast  multitude,  whom  no  man  can 
number.  Their  voice  is  like  the  sound  of  many  w^aters, 
their  movement  like  the  roll  of  mighty  thunderings.  Of 
this  mighty  throng,  we  see  each  one  thinking,  contriving, 
and  working  chiefly  for  himself.  "When  we  consider  tlie 
variety  of  human  interests,  the  force  of  human  passions,  and 
the  prevalence  of  human  depravity,  we  wonder  that  chaos 
does  not  come  back  upon  the  social  world.  Yet,  compara- 
tively, it  is  but  seldom  that  convulsions  disturb  the  elements 
of  social  order.  Men  for  the  most  part  take  their  proper 
places  in  society  with  ease  and  contentment.  This  result  is 
not  achieved  wholly  by  man's  wisdom.  It  is  produced, 
rather,  by  God's  providence,  appointing  alike  the  good  and 
the  evil,  which  befal  the  individual  and  the  race.  Thus 
does  the  contemplation  of  society  conduct  our  thoughts  to 
God  as  its  author;  the  being,  who,  amid  all  the  fluctuations 
of  human  aflairs,  presides  over  mortal  destinies,  and  reigns 
with  an  equal  supremacy,  in  the  annies  of  heaven  and 
among  the  inhabitants  of  earth.  IVow,  since  human  society 
is  so  manifestly  embraced  within  the  comprehensive  purpose 
of  the  Creator,  what  ever  agencies  are  essential  to  its  success- 
ful working  must  be  agreeable  to  his  will.  Of  these  agen- 
cies, government  is  clearly  one  ;  and,  indeed,  it  holds  a  con- 
spicuous place  among  them. 

1.  Consider  the  nature  and  uses  of  civil  government;  and 
you  shall  confess  its  origin  to  be  divine.  A  nation  is  a 
wonderful  and  a  fearful  thing.  "  A  mighty  moral  mass, 
immortal  in  mortality."  How  much  weakness  to  be  helped  ! 
How  much  ignorance  to  be  taught  I  How  much  misery  to 
relieved  !'  What  vast  capacities  to  be  developed  and  dis- 
ciplined !  What  complicated  interests  to  be  adjusted ! 
What  folly,  madness,  and  crime  to  be  held  in  check ! 
What  a  sum  of  good  to  be  achieved,  and  of  evil  to  be  pre- 
vented !     ''  Can  there  be  any  human  measure  of  national 


INTKODUCTORY   ESSAY.  25 

responsibility  ?  Can  there  be  anything,  short  of  creation,  so 
pregnant  in  results,  as  the  national  organization  ?  What 
hand,  unequal  to  the  one,  could  have  been  trusted  with  the 
other  ?  Who,  that  refers  the  first  to  God,  will,  in  the  other, 
stop  with  man  ?  Where  is  the  wisdom,  short  of  God's,  that 
shall  devise  ?  Where  are  the  sanctions,  short  of  God's,  that 
shall  authenticate  ?  Where  is  the  power,  short  of  God's, 
that  shall  sustain  ?  "* 

8.  I  conclude  this  branch  of  the  general  argument  m 
support  of  the  divine  origin  of  government  with  a  few 
beautiful  reflections  of  a  heathen  philosopher,  bearing  upon 
tlie  subject.  "  Nature,"  says  Seneca,*  "  to  make  amends  to 
man  for  denying  him  those  natural  arms  which  she  has 
given  to  wild  beasts,  has  endowed  him  with  two  things 
which  make  him  greatly  their  superior ;  I  mean  reason  and 
sociability.  By  these  he  who  alone  could  make  no  resist- 
ance, becomes  master  of  the  whole.  Society  gives  him  an 
empire  over  other  animals.  Society  supplies  him  with 
remedies  in  his  diseases,  assistance  in  his  old  age,  and  com- 
fort in  his  pains  and  anxieties.  Society  enables  him,  as  it 
w^ere,  to  bid  defiance  to  fortune.  Take  away  society,  and 
you  destroy  the  union  of  mankind,  on  which  the  preserva- 
tion and  the  whole  happiness  of  life  depend."'  Tims  it 
appears,  that  society  is  among  the  most  precious  of  those 
blessings,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  the  divine  benevo- 
lence. And  can  we  believe,  that  the  wisdom  of  God  has 
denied  that  which  is  essential  to  the  enjoyment  of  a  gift, 
which  his  goodness  has  bestowed  upon  us  ? 

Such  is  the  voice  of  reason  in  regard  to  the  origin  and 
foundation  of  civil  government.  Let  us  now  proceed  to 
inquire,  secondly,  what  is  the  teaching  of  revelation  on  this 
point  ? 

*  Bishop  Doane's  Orat.  before  the  N.  J.  Society  of  the  Cincinuati,  entitled 
Civil  Government  a  Sacred  Trust  from  God. 
*  Cited  in  Barbcyrac's  Int.  to  Puffeudorf  s  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations. 


So  mTKDDUCTORY   ESSAY. 

Here  the  Bible  holds  a  language  both  clear  and  emphatic. 
Its  doctrine  is,  that  God  is  the  universal  governor ;  that 
civil  government  is  a  sacred  trust  from  him  ;  that  he  rules 
in  and  by  the  civil  magistrate  ;  and  that  civil  obedience  is 
a  religious  obligation,  a  tribute  due  to  heaven,  because  he 
ministers  in  the  person  of  the  ruler.  The  proof-texts, 
affirming  these  positions,  are  numerous,  in  both  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Kew.  But  we  must  content  ourselves 
with  a  very  few  citations. 

It  is  no  dubious  or  feeble  support  of  this  theory,  that  the 
Spirit  of  inspiration  has  dignified  magistrates  with  the  title 
of  "  gods ;"  as  he  clearly  has  in  Ps.  82 :  1.  "  God  standeth 
in  the  congregation  of  the  mighty ;  he  judgeth  among  the 
gods."  The  import  of  such  an  appellation  deserves  to  be 
seriously  weighed.  It  is  a  title  which  cannot  imply  less, 
than  that  civil  rulers  are  invested  with  a  divine  authority, 
and  are,  in  the  exercise  of  their  magistracies,  the  representa- 
tives and  vicegerents  of  the  divine  majesty.  Such  seems  to 
be  our  Savior's  interpretation :  "  He  called  them  gods,  unto 
whom  the  word  of  God  came."  What  is  the  meaning  of 
the  declaration,  "  the  word  of  God  came  to  them,"  if  not, 
that  they  hold  their  commission  from  him? 

Tlie  wisdom  of  God, — that  divine  being,  who  is  else- 
where called  the  "Word  of  God,  and  who  is  affirmed  to  be 
from  the  beginning,  to  be  with  God,  and  to  be  God, — 
declares,  by  the  mouth  of  Solomon  :  "  By  me  kings  reign, 
and  princes  decree  justice  :  by  me  princes  rule,  and  nobles, 
yea,  all  the  judges  of  the  earth."  "What  can  be  the  meaning 
of  this,  but  that  the  authority  of  all  civil  governors,  whether 
in  a  monarchy  or  a  republic, — patriarchs,  kings,  sultans, 
presidents,  judges, — is  in  consequence  of  the  appointment  of 
God,  who  has  been  pleased  to  regulate  and  administer 
human  aflairs  in  this  manner?  Does  it  not  indicate  his 
presence  and  presidency  in  the  enactment  and  execution  of 
laws  ?     It  would  be  a  frigid  interpretation  to  say,  that  God 


INTKODUCTORT    ESSAY.  27 

reio"ns  by  kings  and  governors  in  the  way  of  tolerance  alone, 
and  by  merely  withholding  his  interference.  It  is  rather  by 
the  solemn  institution  and  decree  of  his  sovereignty. 

Passing  by  innumerable  other  scripture  testimonies  to  this 
point,  which  it  were  tedious  to  cite,  we  come  to  the  cele- 
brated passage  in  Paul's  letter  to  the  Koman  Christians,  in 
which  the  illustrious  apostle  discusses  the  subject  of  civil 
government  in  a  full  and  formal  manner,  and  declares  his 
opinion  in  the  most  explicit  terms.  "  Let  every  soul,"  says 
this  inspired  Christian  philosopher  and  statist,  "  be  subject 
unto  the  higher  powers.  For  there  is  no  power  but  of  God; 
the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.  "Whosoever,  there- 
fore, resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God ; 
and  they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation 
(condemnation,  punishment).  For  rulers  are  not  a  terror  to 
good  works,  but  to  the  evil.  "Wilt  thou  not  be  afraid  of  the 
power  ?  Do  that  which  is  good,  and  thou  shalt  have  praise 
of  the  same ;  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good. 
But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid  ;  for  he  beareth 
not  the  sword  in  vain.  For  he  is  the  minister  of  God,  a 
revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil.  Where- 
fore, ye  must  needs  be  subject,  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also 
for  conscience'  sake.  For  this  cause  pay  ye  tribute  also ; 
for  they  are  God's  ministers,  attending  continually  upon  this 
very  thing.  Render,  therefore,  to  all  their  dues ;  tribute  to 
whom  tribute ;  custom  to  whom  custom  j  fear  to  whom  fear; 
honor  to  whom  honor."^ 

Here  the  Bible  theory  of  civil  government  is  set  forth 
with  great  perspicuity  and  power.  The  scriptural  argument 
for  its  divine  origin  and  sanction  might  be  safely  rested  on 
this  citation  alone.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find,  in  the 
whole  compass  of  human  literature,  a  more  pregnant  pas- 
sage ;  or  one  containing  views  on  government  more  solid, 
rational,  and  conservative.  It  exhibits  a  complete  theory 
*  Eom.  13  : 1-7. 


28  mTBODUCTOBT    ESSAY. 

of  civil  polity,  in  its  fundamental  principles  ;  a  theory  whicli 
commends  itself  to  every  sober  understanding  and  enlight- 
ened judgment  by  the  common  sense  excellence  of  its 
leading  maxims.  The  main  points  in  the  social  theory  of 
St.  Paul,  as  here  developed,  are  these  following : — ^That 
government  is  a  divine  appointment,  vs.  1,  2,  4,  6 ;  that  the 
civil  magistrate  is  the  minister  of  God,  his  representative 
and  vicegerent,  and  that  under  every  form  of  polity,  vs.  4, 
6  ;  that  the  end  of  government  is  the  good  of  the  governed, 
vs.  3,  4;  that  the  magistracy  js  invested  with  all  needful 
power  both  of  rewarding  and  punishing,  vs.  2,  3,  4 ;  that 
obedience  to  the  civil  power  is  a  religious  duty,  vs.  1,  2,  3,  4; 
that  conscience,  more  than  fear,  ought  to  constrain  us  to  obe- 
dience, V.  5  ;  that  punishment  is  in  its  nature  vindictive ;  it  is  a 
vindication  of  justice,  and  therefore  not  wholly  for  the  deter- 
ment of  others  from  the  like  crimes,  and  still  less  for  the 
mere  reformation  of  the  criminal  himself,  v.  4;  and  that 
those  who  serve  the  state  in  the  magistracy  are  entitled,  in 
return,  to  support  and  honor,  from  those  over  whom  they 
are  placed,  v.  7. 

We  are,  next,  to  inquire,  what  is  the  voice  of  human 
V\  authority  as  to  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  government  ? 

The  theory,  which  traces  the  institution  of  society  and 
government  up  to  the  will  of  God,  and  which  we  have  shown 
to  be  suggested  by  reason  and  confirmed  by  revelation,  has 
united  the  voices  of  the  best  and  wisest  of  men  in  all  times 
and  countries.  The  idea  was  very  general  in  ancient  times, 
that  divine  authority  was  indispensable  to  the  establishment 
of  laws  over  a  people.  We  see  this  very  plainly  in  the  care 
taken  by  all  the  lawgivers  of  antiquity  to  impress  upon 
tliose  for  whom  they  legislated  the  belief  that  they  were 
under  a  divine  inspiration.  Nor  was  this  idea  confined  to 
rude  and  barbarous  tribes,  but  appears  to  have  been  most 
widely  diffused  in  those  nations  where  the  refinements  of 
civilization  had  m.ade  the  greatest  advances  ;  as  among  the 


INTKODUCTOKY   ESSAY.  29 

Persians,  Egyptians,  Greeks,  and  Romans.  Tliis  was  a 
fiction,  no  doubt;  but  tlie  universality  of  it,  and  the  ready 
assent  which  mankind  yielded  to  it,  may  be  received  as 
evidence  of  the  truth,  so  clearly  made  known  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, tha..  "  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God  ;"*  i.  e. 
that  civil  laws  have  their  origin  in  his  will,  and  their 
sanction  from  his  authority. 

There  is  a  general  concurrence  among  moral  and  political 
philosophers  in  the  doctrine,  that  civil  government  is 
founded  on  the  will  of  God.  Bishop  Horsley  speaks  of 
"  the  principle  of  subjection"  to  civil  power  as  "  a  conscien- 
tious submission  to  the  will  of  God."t  "  Tlie  reason  why 
we  should  be  subject  to  magistrates,"  says  Calvin,  "is 
because  they  are  appointed  by  the  ordinance  of  God.  Since 
it  has  pleased  God  so  to  administer  the  government  of  this 
world,  he  who  resists  their  power,  strives  against  the  divine 
ordinance,  and  so  fights  against  God.  Because  to  disregard 
his  providence,  who  is  the  author  of  civil  government,  is  to 
go  to  war  with  him.":{:  "That  all  lawful  dominion,  con- 
sidered in  the  abstract,"  says  Archbishop  Bramhall,  "is 
from  God,  no  man  can  make  any  donbt."§  On  this  subject 
the  profoundly  philosophic  Bishop  Butler  speaks  thus : 
"  Civil  government  is  that  part  of  God's  government  over 
the  world,  which  he  exercises  by  the  instrumentality  of 
men.  Considering  that  all  power  is  of  God,  all  authority  is 
properly  of  divine  appointment ;  men's  very  living  under 
magistracy  might  naturally  have  led  them  to  the  contempla- 
tion of  autliority  in  its  source  and  origin,  the  one  supreme 
authority  of  Almighty  God."||  "All  dominion  over  man," 
says  the  great  Edmund  Burke,  "  is  the  efi'ect  of  the  divine 
disposition.     It  is  bound  by  the  eternal  laws  of  him  that 

*  Rom.  xiii.,  1. 

t  Sermon  44,  Rivington's  edition,  1824,  cited  by  Bishop  Doane. 
X  Commentary  on  Rom.  xiii.,  1. 

2  Serpent  Salve.     "  Archb.  Bramhall's  Works,"  vol.  iii.,  p.  317,  cited  by 
Doane.  11  Sermon  before  the  House  of  Lords. 


oO  INTKODUCTORT   ESSAY. 

gave  it,  with  whicli  no  human  authority  can  dispense ; 
neither  he  that  exercises  it,  nor  even  those  who  are  subject 
to  it.  *****  We  are  all  born  in  subjection,  all  born 
equally,  high  and  low,  governors  and  governed,  in  subjec- 
tion to  one  great,  immutable,  pre-existent  law,  prior  to  all 
our  devices  and  all  our  contrivances,  paramount  to  all  our 
ideas  and  all  our  sensations,  antecedent  to  our  very  exist- 
ence, by  which  we  are  knit  and  connected  in  the  eternal 
frame  of  the  universe,  and  out  of  which  we  cannot  stir. 
This  great  law  does  not  arise  out  of  our  conventions  or  com- 
pacts ;  on  the  contrary,  it  gives  to  our  compacts  and  conven- 
tions all  the  force  and  sanction  they  can  have." 

Besides  the  writers  whose  opinions  are  here  adduced, 
many  other  illustrious  masters  of  political  science,  as 
Plato,  Ileraclitus,  Aristotle,  Cicero,  Grotius,  Puffendorf, 
Burlamaqui,  and  Black8tone,f  have  represented  civil  gov- 
ernment as  founded  in  the  Vv^ill  and  purj^ose  of  the  Deity. 
Nor  is  this  a  slender  support.  For,  although  it  were  im- 
pious, as  well  as  irrational,  to  attach  to  mere  human  opinions 
any  thing  like  infallibility,  yet  deference  to  the  authority  of 
good  and  great  minds  is  but  the  testimony  of  a  reverent  and 
grateful  spirit  to  high  intellectual  and  moral  worth.  Indeed, 
with  the  bulk  of  mankind,  authority  seems  little  less  than  a 
necessity.  The  light  which  they  find  not  in  themselves, 
they  instinctively  seek  in  others.  The  existence  of  oracles, 
from  ancient  Dodona  to  modern  Rome,  attests  this  fact. 

*  Works,  v.  iii.,  p.  116,  Litlle  ff  Brown. 

f  Most  of  these,  with  others,  are  cited  by  Barbeyrac  in  his  Introd.  to  Puf- 
fendorf, Plato  says :  "  All  laws  came  from  God ;  no  mortal  man  was  the 
founder  of  laws."  Aristotle  adopted  the  theory  of  his  master,  Plato. 
Heraclitus,  in  Stobaeus,  affirms,  "  All  human  laws  are  nourished  by  one 
divine  law."  Cicero  delivers  the  opinion  that  "  law  is  nothing  else  but 
right  reason,  derived  from  the  Divinity,  and  government  an  emanation  of 
the  divine  mind."  Special  -citations  are  not  needful  from  the  other  writers 
named  in  the  text,  as  their  political  writings  are  pervaded  with  this  senti- 
ment. 


INTKODUCTOKY    ESSAY.  31 

Oui  earliest  opinions  are  all  formed  in  this  way.  In  child- 
hood the  voice  of  the  parent  is  the  voice  of  God.  Nor  is 
authority,  at  any  period  of  life,  to  be  looked  upon  as  incom- 
patible with  free  thinking.  Doubtless,  it  is  capable  of  being 
abused  ;  as  what  good  thing  is  not  ?  Yet  when  rightly  used 
it  is  a  law  to  the  seeing,  as  well  as  a  guide  to  the  blind. 
"While  it  forms,  as  it  were,  a  safe-conduct  to  persons  of  dor- 
mant intellect,  it  affords,  at  the  same  time,  to  the  awakened 
but  unsettled  mind  a  centre  of  reference  amid  the  multitude 
of  its  own  thoughts,  a  centre  of  rest  amid  the  conflict  of  its 
own  volitions.* 

Thus  it  appears,  that  reason,  revelation,  and  the  best 
human  authority  bear  concurrent  testimony  to  the  divine  ori- 
gin and  foundation  of  civil  polity  and  laws.  But  the  divine 
basis  of  government,  and  the  divine  right  on  the  part  of  any 
particular  individuals,  of  instituting  and  administering  gov- 
ernment, are  questions  totally  distinct  in  their  nature ; 
though  they  have  often  been  confounded  by  such  advocates 
of  arbitrary  power  as  Sir  Eobert  Filmer,  and  by  such  tyrants 
as  King  James  the  second.  Neither  is  every  divine  institu- 
tion of  exactly  the  same  sort.  God  has  instituted  a  Church, 
a  ministry,  a  Sabbath,  and  a  special  public  worship  of  him- 
self. He  has  also  instituted  civil  society  and  civil  govern- 
ment ;  but  in  another  manner.  The  former  of  these  institu- 
tions are  by  positive  enactment,  the  latter,  by  deduction  of 
right  reason.  To  a  knowledge  of  the  former  as  of  divine 
authority,  we  are  conducted  by  revelation  alone  ;  to  a  know- 
ledge of  the  latter  as  originating  in  the  divine  will  and  en- 
joying the  divine  sanction,  we  are  conducted  by  the  light 
of  nature,  as  well  as  by  the  light  of  revealed  truth. 

"  The  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God."f  Undoubt- 
edly they  are.     But  let  us  beware  of  drawing  false  inferences 

*  See  Rev.  Mr.  Hedge's  Oration  before  the  Phi  Beta  l^Iappa  Society, 
Harvard  University. 
f  Rom.  xiii,  1. 


tJ!S  INTEODUCTOKT   ESSAY. 

from  the  use  of  the  word  "  ordained"  in  this  passage.  The 
reference  is  rather  to  the  sanction,  than  the  source,  of  civil 
authority.  Tlie  term  is  not  designed  here  to  instruct  us  as 
to  the  immediate  origin  of  civil  power,  but  rather  to  inform 
us,  that  government  is  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God,  as  being 
an  essential  agency  in  carrying  out  his  purpose  with  respect 
to  human  happiness, 

God  has  "ordained"  certain  things  as  the  conditions  of 
health,  reputation,  and  success  in  business,  as  truly  as  he  has 
"  ordained  the  powers  that  be."  And  we  discover  these 
several  divine  ordinances  in  the  same  manner,  viz.,  by  the 
use  of  enlightened  reason.  God  has  also  "  ordained"  bap- 
tism, preaching,  and  the  sacramental  supper.  But  both  the 
mode  of  ordination  and  the  manner  of  discovering  it,  are, 
in  the  two  classes  of  cases,  quite  different.  In  regard  to 
these  last-mentioned  "  ordinances,"  anu  various  other  divine 
appointments,  it  is  revelation  alone,  that  enables  us  to  know 
what  is  the  will  of  God.  But  concerning  many  things  we 
have  no  such  mode  of  ascertaining  the  purpose  of  Deity ; 
and  yet  may  the  divine  will  be  as  clearly  known  in  these, 
as  in  the  other  cases.  "  ISTot  those  things  alone  are  from 
God,"  says  Puffendorf,  laying  down  a  just  principle  with 
great  clearness  and  felicity  of  diction,  "  not  those  things 
alone  are  from  God,  which  he  institutes  and  ordains  by  his 
own  immediate  act,  without  the  concurrence  or  interposition 
of  men  ;  but  those  likewise,  which  men  themselves,  by  the 
guidance  of  good  reason,  according  as  the  different  circum- 
stances of  times  and  places  required,  have  taken  up,  in  order 
to  the  fulfillment  of  some  obligation  laid  upon  them  by  God'a 
command."* 

When  God  created  man,  he  established  certain  immutable 

laws,  commonly  called  the  laws  of  nature,  by  which  man 

was  to  regulate  his  conduct  in  all  things.     Tliese  laws  were 

to  serve  him  as  guides  in  the  pursuit  of  happiness.     That 

*  "  Law  of  Nature  and  Natidus,"  L.  7.  c.  3,  ^  2. 


INTRODUCTORY    ESSAY.  33 

man  iiiiglit  be  enabled  to  discover  and  apply  the  laws  of  na- 
ture, he  was  endowed  by  the  Creator  with  the  faculty  of  rea- 
son. Among  the  laws  or  princiijles  of  reason  here  referred 
to,  are  these  following; — That  we  should  live  honorably  ; 
that  we  should  hurt  nobody ;  that  w^e  should  render  to  all 
their  dues;  that  we  should  seek  the  good  of  our  fellows: 
and,  to  this  end,  that  we  should  institute  societies,  establish 
governments,  and  ordain  laws.  And  all  these,  society,  gov- 
ernment, law,  are,  at  the  same  time,  truly  divine  and  truly 
human  institutions.  They  are  divine,  inasmuch  as  they  are 
essential  agencies  in  carrying  out  the  divine  purpose  in  the 
creation  of  man.  They  are  human,  inasmuch  as  they  are 
instituted  and  administered  by  men,  without  any  special  and 
immediate  interposition  of  the  Deity. 

This  view  of  civil  government,  as  at  the  same  time  of  di- 
vine and  human  appointment,  is  agreeable  to  the  explicit 
teaching  of  God's  word.  It  harmonizes  in  a  simple,  natural, 
and  satisfactory  manner,  two  passages  of  scripture,  which, 
to  sujjeriicial  thinkers,  would  seem  at  variance  with  each 
other.  St.  Paul  declares,  "  The  powers  that  be  are  ordained 
of  God."*  St.  Peter  exhorts  :  "  Submit  yourselves  to  every 
ordinance  of  man."f  The  former  of  these  inspired  writers 
represents  government  as  an  ordinance  of  God ;  the  latter, 
as  an  ordinance  of  man.  What  have  we  here,  then  ?  One 
divine  inspiration  contradicting  another  divine  inspiration  ? 
Not  in  the  least.  Are  the  two  apostles  inconsistent  with 
each  other  in  their  doctrine  ?  No,  in  no  wise.  They  look 
at  government  from  different  stand-points.  They  exhibit  it 
in  different  relations.  St.  Paul  would  hold  up  to  our  view, 
and  enforce  upon  the  conscience,  the  divine  sanction  of  all 
government ;  St.  Peter,  the  duty  of  obedience  to  the  actually 
existing  government.  The  reference  of  Paul  is  to  the  remote 
and  ultimate  foundation  of  civil  polity ;  the  reference  of 
Peter  to  that  which  is  more  directly  and  immediately  so 
*  Rom.  xiii.  1.  f  1  Pet.  ii.  13. 

3 


84  INTEODUCTOEY    ESSAY. 

The  one  contemplates  government  in  the  root;  the  other  in 
the  bough ;  the  one,  in  the  fouiitain ;  the  other,  in  the 
stream.  Archbishop  Bramhall  and  Bishop  Sanderson  har- 
monize these  passages  in  the  following  manner.  Says  the 
former  of  these  prelates :  "  The  essence  of  power  is  always 
from  God ;  the  existence,  sometimes  from  God,  sometimes 
from  man."*  The  latter  going  more  fully  into  the  subject, 
holds  this  language  :  "  The  substance  of  the  power  of  every 
magistrate  is  the  ordinance  of  God ;  but  the  specification  of 
the  circumstances  thereto  belonging,  as  in  regard  of  places, 
persons,  titles,  continuance,  jurisdiction,  subordination,  and 
the  rest,  is  a  human  ordinance,  introduced  by  custom  or  pos- 
itive law."f 

Pertinent  to  this  point,  and  throwing  light  on  the  twofold 
origin  of  government  here  contended  for,  are  the  following 
reflections  from  that  eminent  prelate,  Bishop  Ilorsley : 
"  The  principles  which  I  advance,  ascribe  no  greater  sanc- 
tity to  monarch}^,  than  to  any  other  form  of  established  gov- 
ernment; nor  do  they  at  all  involve  the  exploded  notion, 
that  all  or  any  of  the  sovereigns  of  earth  hold  their  sove- 
reignty by  virtue  of  such  immediate  or  implied  nomination, 
on  the  part  of  God,  of  themselves  personally,  or  of  the 
stocks  from  which  they  are  descended,  as  might  confer  an 
endless,  indefeasible  right  on  their  posterity.  In  contending 
that  government  was  coeval  with  mankind,  it  will  readily  be 
admitted,  that  all  particular  forms  of  government  which 
now  exist  are  the  work  of  human  policy,  under  the  control 
of  God's  overruling  providence  5  *  *  *  *  *  but  it  is  con- 
tended, that  all  government  is  in  such  sort  of  divine  institu- 
tion, that,  be  the  form  of  any  particular  government  what  it 
may,  the  submission  of  the  individual  is  a  principal  branch 
of  that  religious  duty  which  each  man  owes  to  God.  In 
governments,  of  whatever  denomination,  if  the  form  of  gov- 

*  Works,  v.  iii.,  p.  317. 

t  "  Scrm.  ad  Magistr."  p.  110,  cited  by  Bloomfield,  on  1  Pet.  ii.  13. 


INTEODUCTOKY   ESSAY.  35 

ernment  undergo  a  change,  or  tlie  established  rule  of  suc- 
cession be  set  aside  by  any  violent  or  necessary  revolution, 
the  act  of  the  nation  itself  is  necessary  to  erect  a  new  sov- 
ereignty, cr  to  transfer  the  old  right  to  the  new  possessor. 
********  Of  all  sovereigns  none  reign  by  so  fair  and 
just  a  title,  as  those  who  can  derive  their  claim  from  such 
public  act  of  the  nation  which  they  govern.  *  *  *  *  The 
obligation  to  obedience  proceeds,  primarily,  from  tlie  will  of 
God ;  secondarily,  from  the  act  of  man."*  Dr.  Jortin,f 
another  eminent  and  learned  divine  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, has  embodied  the  same  opinion  in  one  short,  but  lumi- 
nous sentence  :  "  Government,  both  in  Church  and  State,  is 
of  God  ;  the  forms  of  it  are  of  men." 

Hence,  although  the  ultimate  source  of  civil  government 
is  the  divine  will,  the  immediate  source  of  it  may  be,  and 
certainly  is,  quite  another  thing.  God  has  instituted  no  par- 
ticular species  of  civil  polity  for  all  mankind,  nor  invested 
any  particular  persons  with  authority  over  their  fellows. 
All  forms  of  polity,  not  subversive  of  the  true  ends  of  gov- 
ernment, the  preservation,  j)erfection,  and  happiness  of  man, 
are  agreeable  to  his  will.  All  civil  rulers,  kings,  consuls, 
senators,  presidents,  governors,  representative  assemblies, 
and  the  whole  body  of  the  people  exercising  the  functions 
of  sovereignty,  are  equally  his  vicegerents,  his  ministers, 
ruling  in  his  place,  bearing  the  sword  for  him. 

It  is,  therefore,  quite  proper  to  hiquire  into  the  origin  of 
political  government  and  the  sources  of  political  power,  as 
things  of  human  contrivance  and  purpose,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  that  divine  sanction,  w^hich,  by  the  law  of  nature, 
as  well  as  the  law  of  revelation,  will  inevitably  attach  itselt 
to  political  institutions,  as  soon  as  they  are  formed  and  put 
into  operation.  Nor  is  such  an  inquiry  justly  open  to  the 
charge  of  irreligion.     For,  as  Puftendorf  has  truly  observed, 

*  Sermon  44,  Eivington's  Edition. 

t  Oital  by  "Dr.  Miller  on  the  Christian  Ministry,"  c.  1. 


SQ  INTKODUCTORT   ESSAY. 

"lie  who   affirms  sovereignty  to   result   immediaiely  from 
compact,  doth  not  in  the  least  detract  from  the  sacred  char- 
acter of  civil  government,  or  maintain  that  princes  bear  rule 
by  human  right  only,  not  by  divine."* 
^^  It  is  proper  here  to  distinguish  between  natural  society 

and  civil  society.  If  it  be  contended  that  no  such  distinc- 
tion has  ever  existed  in  point  of  fact,  this,  if  true,  does  not 
hinder  from  making  it  an  object  of  thought.  When  God 
made  man,  he  made  him  for  society.  He  endowed  him  with 
sociability.  He  subjected  him  to  the  necessity  of  living  in 
community.  But  he  gave  no  man  civil  power  over  other 
men.  The  family  is,  indeed,  a  divine  institution  ;  and  the 
father  is,  by  divine  right,  invested  with  a  power  of  com- 
mand over  his  children.  But  parental  authority  is  not  civil 
authority.  JS'or  is  it,  perhaps,  possible  now  to  determine  how 
far  the  existence  of  civil  laws,  and  consequently  of  civil 
society,  would  have  been  necessary,  had  man  never  fallen. 
So  far,  at  least,  is  certain,  that  the  necessity  of  civil  laws 
results,  if  not  wholly,  yet  in  good  part,  from  the  wickedness 
of  mankind.  The  sense  of  obligation  to  divine  law  is  not 
enough  to  keep  men  from  injustice.  Hence  human  law 
must  supervene  to  hold  their  bad  passions  in  check.  Pub- 
lic force  must  take  the  place  of  individual  conscience.  Men 
must  be  restrained  in  the  use  of  that  liberty,  which  but  for 
their  depravity,  they  might,  perhaps,  have  enjoyed  without 
curtailment.  Natural  society,  then,  is  a  state,  where,  so  far 
as  civil  authority  is  concerned,  all  are  equal,  all  indei3endent, 
all  free  ;  a  state,  where  none  possess  the  right  to  command, 
and  none  are  under  the  obligation  to  obey.  Civil  society 
destroys  this  equality,  abridges  this  independence,  curtails 
this  freedom.  It  may  be  defined  to  be,  the  union  of  a  mul- 
titude of  people,  who  agree  to  live  in  subjection  to  govern- 
xnent,  in  order  to  secure,  through  its  protection  and  care,  the 
happiness  for  which  they  were  created,  which  they  natu- 
*  "  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,"  L.  7,  C.  3, 1  i. 


INTKODUCTORY   ESSAY.  37 

rally  desire,  and  which  they  cannot  jDrocure  in  any  other 
way. 

Tlie  actual  commencement  of  civil  communities,  as  an 
historical  fact,  is  forever  lost  in  the  darkness  of  antiquity. 
Some  plausible  guesses  are  all  that  the  most  sagacious  minds 
have  ever  been  able  to  achieve  in  their  search  of  it.  Some 
attribute  the  origin  of  civil  society  to  parental  autliority; 
some,  to  mutual  distrust  and  dread ;  and  some,  to  ambition, 
supported  by  force  of  arms,  or  force  of  genius. 

These  are  the  jjrincipal  conjectures  of  "writers  concerning 
the  origin  of  political  unions.  There  is  nothing  in  them,  on 
which  the  mind  can  settle,  in  the  conviction  that  it  has 
attained  to  truth.  It  is  quite  probable,  that,  in  the  first  in- 
stitution of  civil  societies,  mankind  sought  relief  from  vio- 
lence and  injustice,  rather  than  the  several  advantages  arising 
from  established  laws,  such  as  commerce,  letters,  sciences, 
arts,  and  the  various  other  social  improvements,  in  which  a 
high  civilization  consists.  It  is  equally  probable,  that  pater- 
nal authority,  with  the  many  advantages  flowing  from  the 
family  relation,  suggested  the  first  idea,  and  aiforded  the 
earliest  model  of  political  organizations.  It  is  still  more 
j)robable,  as  appears  from  the  history  of  JSTimrod,  that  am- 
bition had  no  little  agency  in  the  early  establishment  of 
governments  among  men.  But,  however  these  things  may 
be,  all  the  analogies  of  human  affairs  attest,  that  the  bodies 
politic  first  formed  were  not  such  as  we  see  now  existing. 
All  human  institutions  are  imperfect  in  their  beginnings. 
Improvement  is  ever  a  work  of  time.  The  progress  from 
rudeness  to  perfection  is  commonly  by  slow  degrees.  Gov- 
ernment does  not  form  an  exception  to  this  rule.  Civil  law 
at  first  was  very  imperfect.  Jurisprudence  was  not  formed 
into  a  regular  system  at  once.  No  human  sagacity  could 
foresee  everything ;  and  new  occasions  would  conthiually 
demand  the  enactment  of  new  laws.  The  earliest  states, 
therefore,  were,  in  all  probability,  small  in  extent,  and  sim- 


38  mTEODUCTOKY   ESSAY. 

pie  in  polity.  Kings  were  mere  chieftains,  possessing  very 
limited  powers.  Tli  ey  were  often  appointed  to  act  simply  as 
arbiters  in  disputes,  or  leaders  in  war.  Hence,  in  the  most 
ancient  histories,  we  sometimes  read  of  several  kings  in  the 
same  nation  at  the  same  time.  A  small  city,  a  town,  a  few 
leagues  of  territory,  were  honored  with  the  name  of  king- 
dom. There  were  no  less  than  thirty-one  kings  in  the  little 
territory  of  Palestine,  at  the  time  of  the  Hebrew  Con- 
quest.* 

But  such  questions  afford  matter  rather  of  curious  specu- 
lation, than  of  practical  utility.  The  point  of  real  importance 
is  :  What  is  the  trne  source  of  political  government?  What 
the  true  basis  of  political  power  ?  What  the  true  foundation 
'  of  political  sovereignty  ? 

Nor  let  any  one  imagine,  that  these  are  adjudicated  ques- 
tions. The  fact  is  quite  otherwise.  'Not  only  is  the  original 
institution  of  government  veiled  in  darkness,  but  the  legiti- 
mate sources  and  limits  of  its  authority  are  matters  yet  in 
dispute.  The  late  Alexander  Everett,  a  statesman  and 
scholar  of  no  mean  repute,  in  an  Essay  on  the  Life  and 
Writings  of  Rousseau,  says  :  "  The  theory  of  a  social  con- 
tract, though  somewhat  plausible  at  first  view,  does  not  bear 
the  test  of  examination,  and  is  rarely  admitted  at  the  present 
day  by  competent  judges."t  A  declaration  tliis  the  more 
remarkable,  as  it  is  unsustained  by  a  single  word  of  argument, 
and  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  express  doctrine  of  the 
constitution  of  Massachusetts,  of  which  state  Mr.  Everett 
was  a  citizen.  The  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  in  an  able,  and 
for  the  most  part,  admirable  oration,  pronounced  before  the 
New  Jersey  Society  of  the  Cincinnati,  and  entitled  "  Civil 
Government,  a  Sacred  Trust  from  God,"  declares,  that  "  the 
social  compact,  which  men  talk  of,  was  never  entered  into.":}: 

*  Josh.  xii.  24.  Homer  mentions  several  kings  of  the  Pheacians,  Odyss. 
L.  8,  vs.  40,  41.     Goguet  (Origin  of  Laws,  B.  1.) 

t  Essays  of  Alexander  Everett.  X  ^-  ^'^- 


INTRODUCTORT   ESSAY.  39 

He,  too,  contents  himself  with  the  naked  assertion,  without 
adducing  a  single  proof  or  authority  to  support  it.  A  dis- 
tinguished divine  of  Boston,  in  a  discourse  before  the  Mas- 
sachusetts Legislature  on  the  Religious  Tlieory  of  Civil 
Government,  has,  not  obscurely,  broached  the  doctrine,  that 
the  Divine  will  is  the  immediate  source  of  civil  power ;  that 
it  is  anti-christian  to  regard  the  people  as  the  fountain  of 
civil  authority  ;  and  that  the  theory  of  civil  society,  known 
as  the  social  compact,  is,  to  use  his  own  words,  "  negatively 
atheistic."* 

There  is,  perhaps,  a  growing  indisposition  in  the  clergy 
to  admit  the  doctrine  of  the  social  compact,  as  the  true 
theory  of  civil  government.  This  has  arisen  from  an  appre- 
hension,—a  mistaken  apprehension  certainly, — that  the  ten- 
dency of  the  theory  is  to  undermine,  or,  at  least,  to  weaken 
the  religious  obligation  of  civil  obedience.  Tliere  is  no 
doubt,  that  much  that  is  erroneous  concerning  both  the  na- 
ture and  the  sanctions  of  civil  government,  is  taught  under 
the  name  of  the  social  compact.  Some,  for  instance,  sup- 
pose and  teach,  that  civil  society,  in  its  associated  capacity, 
can  possess  no  power,  wdiich  does  not,  while  the  state  of  na- 
ture lasts,  actually  belong  to  men,  in  their  personal  capacity. 
They  suppose  and  teach,  that  individuals  can  give  to  the 
community  no  power  which  they  do  not  individually  pos- 
sess. From  such  a  view  of  the  social  compact  it  would  fol- 
low, that,  as  no  individual  has  the  right  to  take  his  own  life, 
civil  society  can  have  no  such  right.  There  has  been,  be- 
cause there  could  be,  no  grant  of  such  power  from  the  per- 
sons composing  the  state.  Tlius,  the  fact  that  suicide  is  a 
sin,  becomes  an  argument  against  capital  punishment. 

But  this,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  is  an  abuse  of  the 
doctrine  which  we  are  considering.  The  theory  as  thus  pre- 
sented, is  distorted  either  by  ignorance  or  cunning.  When 
correctly  exhibited,  it  inculcates  no  such  view  as  this.  It 
■*  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander  H.  Vinton's  Election  Sermon,  1848,  passim. 


40  INTEODUCTORY    ESSAY. 

does  not  deny  that  civil  government  is  an  ordinance  of  God. 
It  does  not  repudiate  a  religious  sanction  as  attaching  to 
civil  authority.  It  does  not  question  the  doctrine,  that  obe- 
dience to  civil  laws  is  a  religious  duty.  It  does  not  in  the 
least  detract  from  the  dignity  and  sacredness  of  civil  gov- 
ernment as  a  divine  institution.  It  does  not  deny  the  divine 
right  of  government ;  but  it  does  deny  the  divine  right  of 
kings,  considered  as  persons,  and  not  as  powers.  It  denies 
an  original  divine  title  to  civil  power,  in  any  man,  or  any 
set  of  men.  It  denies  the  divine  right  of  an  absolute  and 
unquestionable  administration  of  government.  It  hurls  its 
iron  gauntlet  against  such  a  comprehensive  charter  of  des- 
potism as  this  doctrine  would  establish.  It  thunders  its  de- 
liance  against  the  monarchs  who  would  thus  create  a  satur- 
nalia for  themselves,  laying  the  cost  of  it  in  human  blood  and 
freedom. 

Let  us  inquire  into  these  things.  There  can  be  but  two 
theories  on  this  subject.  The  sovereign  authority  in  a  state 
must  be  derived  directly  either  from  God  or  the  people. 
Observe,  that  the  question  here  is  not  concerning  the  remote 
origin  of  government.  It  is  not  concerning  the  ultimate 
foundation  of  government.  It  is  not  concerning  the  sanction 
of  government.  All  these  are,  in  the  strictest  sense,  divine. 
The  question  is  concerning  the  proximate  source  of  civil 
power, — ^whether  it  is  in  God,  or  in  the  will  and  act  of  the 
nation. 

It  must  be  kept  in  mind,  that  there  are  but  two  possible 
sources  of  civil  power,  viz.,  God  and  the  people.  The  question 
is,  from  which  of  these  does  the  magistrate  immediately  re- 
ceive his  authority  ?  Not,  surely,  from  God.  God  does  not 
designate  the  rulers  of  nations  by  special  revelation ;  neither 
does  he  set  distinguishing  marks  of  dominion  upon  some 
men,  and  of  subjection  upon  others.  "He  does  not,"  as 
Sidney  has   forcibly  said,    "  cause  some   to  be   born  with 


mTEODUCTORT   ESSAY.  41 

crowns  upon  their  heads,  and  others  with  saddles  on  their 
backs."* 

There  must,  therefore,  be  a  real  and  proper  sense  in  which 
it  may  be  affirmed,  that  the  people  are  the  fountain  of 
political  power  ;f  that  political  sovereignty  resides  in  them, 
as  its  spring  and  source  ;:{:  that  the  immediate  original  of 
sovereign  authority  is  in  human  covenants  ;§  that  it  is  com- 
petent for  the  people  to  retain,  or  to  transfer  it ;  that,  in 
short,  they  are  the  sole  judges  of  the  forms  they  will  give  to 
their  commonwealths,  and  of  the  powers  and  limitations  of 
power  which  they  will  establish  in  them. 

My  ideas  on  these  points  can  be  best  explained  by  an 
imaginary  case.  Let  us  suppose  a  hundred  persons  to  have 
taken  possession  of  an  unappropriated  island-  Each  is,  by 
supposition,  independent  of  the  others.  They  stand  upon  a 
footing  of  entire  equality.  The  old  maxim, — '■'■  jpar  inparem 
non  hdbet  hinjperium^'' — equals  have  no  authority  over  one 
another, — is  in  full  force.  No  one  of  the  hundred  possesses 
any  right  of  command  over  the  others ;  no  one  of  them  is 
subject  to  any  obligation  of  obedience.  This,  then,  is  the 
state  of  nature ;  wherein  all  are  in  the  full  enjoyment  of 
what  is  called  natural  liberty ;  that  is  to  say,  the  right  of 
doing  each  what  he  pleases;  subject  only  to  the  restraints 
imposed  by  the  law  of  nature. 

Manifestly,  this  is  a  state  of  things  not  long  to  be  endured 
while  human  passions  continue  what  they  are.  The  power 
of  acting  as  each  one  thinks  fit,  is  inconsistent  with  security 
in  any  of  the  enjoyments  of  life.*!"  It  will  soon,  therefore, 
be  found  expedient,  if  not  imperative,  to  enter  into  some 
compact,  whereby  individuals  may  be  protected  in  those 
absolute  rights  which  are  vested  in  them  by  the  immutable 

*  Discourses  on  Government,  Chap.  3,  Sect.  33. 
f  Adams'  Defence  of  American  Constitutions. 
X  Burlamaqui's  "  Politic  Law,"  Part  1,  Chap.  6. 
g  Ibidem. 
\  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  Book  1,  Chap.  1. 


42  INTEODUCTOEY   ESSAY. 

laws  of  nature.  In  other  words,  it  will  become  necessary  to 
institute  civil  society. 

What,  under  these  circumstances,  will  he  the  probable 
course  of  things  ?  First,  these  isolated  individuals  must  agree, 
each  with  each,  to  join  in  one  firm  and  lasting  society, 
and  to  concert  the  measures  of  their  mutual  safety  and 
welfare.  Here  will  be  the  germ  and  first  rudiments  of  a 
state.  The  next  step  will  be  to  agree  upon  some  form  of 
polity.  Here,  it  is  quite  plain,  they  may  settle  their  new 
commonwealth  upon  any  basis  and  give  it  any  form  they 
like  best.  They  may  institute  a  monarchy,  an  aristocracy, 
a  democracy,  or  a  government  compounded  out  of  all  three. 
This  labor  done,  the  state  begins  to  assume  a  definite  and 
fixed  form.  A  further  advance  will  be  the  choice  of  such 
magistrates  as  may  have  been  agreed  upon.  A  covenant — 
it  matters  not  whether  it  be  express  or  implied — between 
the  governors  and  the  governed,  whereby  the  former  bind 
themselves  to  take  care  of  the  common  defence  and  welfare, 
and  the  latter  to  yield  obedience  to  them  in  the  exercise  of 
their  rightful  authority,  gives  completeness  and  perfection 
to  the  state.*  This  last  covenant  includes  the  subjection  of 
the  will  of  each  individual  member  of  the  society  to  the 
will  of  the  head,  so  far  as  the  public  good  requires;  whether 
such  head  be  a  single  person,  one  or  more  councils  of  sages, 
or  the  assembled  people.f  And  thus  it  is,  that  a  regular 
state  and  a  perfect  government  are  formed. 

The  state  has  now  become,  by  this  submission  and  union 
of  wills,  a  moral  person ;  invested  with  personal  attributes  ; 
enjoying  personal  rights;  subject  to  personal  obligations; 
and  capable  of  deliberating,  resolving,  and  acting  in  a  per- 
sonal capacity.  It  is  no  longer  a  mere  multitude.  It  is  not 
an  assemblage  of  individuals  without  any  common  will.  It 
is  a  body  politic.     It  is  a  society  animated  by  one  soul, 

*  PufiFendorf  s  "  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,"  Lib.  7,  C.  2. 
f  Burlamaqui's  "  Politic  Law,"  Part  1,  Chap.  4. 


INTEODUCTOKY   ESSAY.  43 

M'liicli  directs  all  its  motions  and  makes  all  its  members  act 
with  a  view  to  one  and  the  same  end, — the  public  ntility 
!N^either  is  the  personality  of  the  state  in  tlie  least  affected, 
whether  this  imion  of  wills  be  brought  about  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  one  man  to  be  the  sovereign,  by  the  institution 
of  a  council  or  councils  of  senators,  or  by  a  majority  of 
voices  in  a  general  assembly  of  the  people.  It  is  still  a 
unit,  and  not  an  aggregate.  It  is  an  organized  product, 
having  an  internal  vitality,  working  its  own  growth  and 
ripeness,  though  dependent,  all  the  while,  in  its  organic 
capacity  on  that  great  Being,  who  is  the  founder  of  nations, 
xio  less  than  the  Creator  of  man. 

Isow,  in  the  case  which  I  have  supposed,  the  origination 
of  the  society,  the  form  of  polity,  the  choice  of  magistrates, 
the  powers  confided  to  them,  the  qualifications  tor  office,  the 
conditions  of  surrendering  it,  the  duration  of  the  magistra- 
cies, and,  in  brief,  the  entire  constitution  of  the  state,  are  the 
direct  result  of  the  action  of  the  people.  Is  not  the  popular 
will,  then,  the  immediate  origin  of  the  government  ?  Is  it 
not  the  direct  source  of  power  in  those  who  administer  it  ? 
"When  a  man  gets  from  me  something  to  which  he  had  be- 
fore no  claim,  and  which  he  could  not  have  obtained  other- 
wise than  through  me,  then  am  I,  clearly,  the  immediate 
source  of  that  possession  to  him.  Suppose  A  buys  a  piece 
of  land  of  B.  The  title  being  before  truly  in  B,  B  is  to  A 
the  immediate  source  of  his  right  to  the  property  in  ques- 
tion ;  and  this,  notwithstanding  the  general  right  of  projierty 
has  its  foundation  in  the  will  of  God.  So  if  a  dozen  men  of 
the  hundred  become,  through  the  action  of  the  hundred,  in- 
vested with  a  right  of  command,  which  before  they  possessed 
not,  then  are  the  hundred  the  immediate  fountain  of  such 
their  authority,  though  it  be  admitted,  as  it  freely  is,  that 
the  will  of  God  is  the  remote  source  and  the  ultimate  basis 
of  it. 

This,  now,  is  the  social  compact.     Mr.  Locke   is  not,  as 


44  ESTTRODUCTOKY    ESSAY. 

many  suppose,  the  author  of  this  theory  of  government. 
On  the  contrary,  its  essential  principles  have  been  held  by 
the  most  illustrious  political  philosophers  of  all  ages. 

Plato  defines  a  law  to  be  "  a  public  ordinance  of  the  body 
of  the  state  ;"  meaning  thereby,  the  whole  people.  He 
makes  the  foundation  of  the  state  to  be  "  a  tacit  agreement 
between  each  member  and  the  whole  community,"  and  de- 
clares that  "  they  who  refuse  to  submit  to  the  laws,  violate 
the  agreement."* 

Aristotle  founds  his  politics  on  nearly  the  same  principles 
with  those  of  his  master.  "  The  civil  law,"  he  says,  "is  that 
which  takes  place  amongst  a  number  of  free  persons,  who 
are  members  of  the  same  community,  in  which  they  live 
on  a  footing  of  equality,  either  pure  and  simple,  or  propor- 
tionable."! 

Apuleius,  from  the  authority  of  Plato  himself,  defining 
the  Platonic  commonwealth  as  the  most  perfect  model  of 
government,  calls  it  "  a  union  of  many  men,  in  which  some 
govern  and  some  are  governed,  but  all  agree  and  mutually 
assist  each  other,  guiding  themselves  in  their  duty  by  the 
same  laws.":}: 

Livy  declares  "  the  force  of  the  supreme  command  to  be 
built  upon  the  consent  of  those  who  obey."§ 

Cicero,  with  his  usual  exactness  and  felicity,  defines  a 
state  to  be  "  a  multitude  of  people,  united  together  by  com- 
mon laws,  a  common  interest,  and  a  common  consent."! 

To  the  same  effect  is  the  definition  of  Puflendorf.  It  is 
this:  "A  civil  state  is  a  compound  moral  person,  whose  will 
united  and  tied  together  by  those  covenants,  which  before 

*  De  Leg.  L.  i.  See  also  "  Dacier's  Life  of  Plato,"  pp.  90,  91  ;  Bar- 
beyrac's  Historical  and  Critical  Account  of  the  Science  of  Morality,  §  21, 

f  Barbeyrac's  Historical  and  Critical  Account  of  the  Science  of  Moral- 
ity, I  24. 

X  Puffend.  "  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,"  Lib.  7.  c.  2. 

§  Hist.  Lib.  2,  c.  59.  De  Rep.  L.  3. 


INTKODUCTOKT   ESSAY.  45 

passed  among  the  multitude,  is  deemed  the  will  of  all,  to 
the  end  that  it  may  maintain  the  common  ^^eace  and  se- 
curity."* 

Grotius  declares  his  opinion  concerning  the  original  of 
government  thus :  "  Men,  not  influenced  by  the  express 
command  of  God,  but  of  their  own  accord,  having  expe- 
rienced the  weak  defence  of  separate  families  against  the 
assaults  of  violence,  united  themselves  in  civil  society,  the 
effect  of  which  was  civil  power,  styled,  on  this  account,  by 
St.  Peter,  the  ordinance  of  man,"f 

Montesquieu,  quoting  Gravina  with  aj^probation,  says : 
"  Tlie  conjunction  of  the  particular  forces  of  individuals 
constitutes  what  we  call  a  political  state.  The  particular- 
forces  of  individuals  cannot  be  united  without  a  conjunction 
of  all  their  wills.  The  conjunction  of  those  wills  is  what  we 
call  the  civil  state.":}: 

Blackstone,  though  he  rejects  the  theory  of  an  actually 
existing  unconnected  state  of  nature,  nevertheless  admits  an 
"  original  contract  of  society,"  concerning  which  he  makes 
the  following  observation ;  "  This  contract,  though  perhaj^s 
in  no  instance  has  it  ever  been  formally  expressed  at  the  first 
institution  of  a  state,  yet  in  nature  and  reason  must  be 
always  understood  and  implied,  in  the  very  act  of  associat- 
ing together :  namely,  that  the  whole  should  protect  all  its 
parts,  and  that  every  part  should  pay  obedience  to  the  will 
of  the  whole ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  community  should 
guard  the  rights  of  each  individual  member,  and  that,  in  re- 
turn for  this  protection,  each  individual  should  submit  to  the 
laws  of  the  community. "§ 

The  elder  Adams,  one  of  the  most  solid  and  sagacious  of 
political  writers,  in  his  Eeview  of  "  ISTedham's  Eight  Consti 

*  "  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,"  Lib.  7,  Cap.  2. 
f  "  Right  of  War  and  Peace,"  Lib.  4,  ^  7. 
%  "  Spirit  of  Laws,"  B.  1.  c.  3. 
2  Comment.  Bk.  1.  c.  6. 


46  rN'TKODTJCTOET   ESSAY. 

tution  of  a  Commonwealth,"  among  many  other  things  to  the 
same  effect,  has  the  following:  "If  ever  that  excellent 
maxim,  that  the  fountain  of  all  just  power  and  government 
is  in  the  people,  was  fully  demonstrated  and  exemplified 
among  men,  it  was  in  the  late  American  revolution,  when 
thirteen  governments  were  taken  down  from  the  founda- 
tion, and  new  ones  erected  wholly  by  the  people,  as  an  arch- 
itect would  pull  down   an  old  building,  and  erect  a  new 


one 


"* 


It  would  be  tedious  to  proceed  with  these  citations,  though 
to  multiply  them  were  an  easy  task.  For  not  only  the 
authors  above-cited,  but  also  Harrington,  Milton,  Bacon, 
Sidney,  Locke,  Barbeyrac,  Burlamaqui,  Turgot,  Neckar,  and 
our  own  statesmen  and  publicists  almost  without  exception, 
have  held  to  the  doctrine  of  the  social  compact,  as  the  true 
tlieory  of  political  organizations. 

It  is  objected  to  this  theory  of  a  social  compact,  that  it  is 
"  historically  untrue."f  That  depends  upon  the  meaning  we 
attach  to  the  phrase,  "historically  untrue."  If  by  this  ex- 
pression be  meant  simply,  that  there  is  no  authentic  account 
of  the  first  governments  instituted  among  men,  in  which  the 
social  compact  can  be  historically  traced,  I  assent  to  the  pro- 
position. But  then,  for  the  very  same  reason,  every  other 
theory  of  civil  society  must  be  also  "  historically  untrue  ;" 
for  the  origin  of  all  the  earliest  polities  is  involved  in  the 
same  impenetrable  darkness  of  anticpiity.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  be  intended  to  assert,  that  no  civil  community  has 
ever  been  instituted  on  the  basis  of  express  compact,  we  will 
interrogate  history  on  that  point. 

But  before  entering  on  this  inquiry,  let  it  be  observed,  that 
none  of  the  advocates  of  the  social  compact,  in  presenting 
their  ideas  concerning  the  first  formation   of  governments, 

*  "  Defence  of  American  Constitution,"  v.  3.  p.  365. 
t  Dr.  "Vinton's  Elect.  Sermon  on  the  Religious  Theory  of  Civil  Govern- 
ment, p.  16. 


INTRODUCTORY   ESSAY.  47 

id  as  writing,  or  intending  to  write  his- 
tory. Tliej  have  but  propounded  a  philosophical  theory  in 
a  lively  way.  Every  state  must  have  had  a  beginning  ;  and 
since  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  how  any  union  could  be 
formed  without  covenants,  we  must  believe,  that  such  cove- 
nants were,  tacitly,  if  not  formally,  entered  into  in  the  insti- 
tution of  commonwealths.  To  express  this  conviction  in  a 
graphic  manner,  theoretical  writers  have  imagined  what 
might  have  happened,  and  w^hat  substantially  must  have 
happened,  when  men  first  formed  themselves  into  political 
unions.  "  Kor  is  there  anything  to  hinder,"  as  Puffendorf 
has  truly  said,  "  but  tliat  the  original  of  some  things,  not 
committed  to  the  monuments  of  time  and  history,  may  be 
traced  out  by  the  disquisitions  of  reason."*  But  probably 
neither  Locke,  nor  Sidney,  nor  any  other  rational  writer, 
supposed  there  was  once  a  time  when  no  such  thing  as  so- 
ciety existed  ;  and,  that,  from  the  impulse  of  reason  and  the 
sense  of  their  own  wants,  individuals  met  together  in  a  large 
plain,  entered  into  an  original  formal  contract,  and  chose  the 
tallest  man  present  to  be  their  governor. 

Thus  much  by  way  of  apology  for  certain  writers,  who 
have  not  always,  perhaps,  been  sufiiciently  careful  to  distin- 
guish between  actual  history  and  what  they  have  themselves 
rationally  imagined.  Let  us  now  glance  at  the  social  com- 
pact in  an  historical  point  of  view.  Let  us  inquire  whether, 
in  point  of  fact,  states  have  ever  been  formally  established 
upon  this  basis. 

The  reader  is  first  invited  to  the  study  of  a  piece  of  his- 
tory, to  which  he  will,  perhaps,  hardly  expect  to  have  his 
attention  called ;  but  which,  on  examination,  will  be  found, 
unless  I  am  mistaken,  both  pertinent  and  instructive.  It  is 
contained  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Exodus,  where  the 
historian  gives  an  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Hebrew  gov- 
ernment. Unless  my  analysis  of  the  transaction  there  re- 
*  "  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,"  Lib.  7,  Cap.  2,  ^  8. 


48  INTRODUCTORY    ESSAY 

corded  be  erroneous,  we  sliall  find  in  it  the  substantial  ele- 
ments of  tlie  social  compact.     Proceed  we  to  this  analysis. 

Moses  is  solemnl}'  summoned  to  Mount  Sinai.*  There  li« 
receives  a  commission  to  propose  Jeliovah  to  the  Hebrew 
people,  as  the  civil  head  of  their  state. f  Descending  from 
the  mount,  he  assembles  the  head  men,  called  "  elders  of  the 
people."  In  due  form  he  submits  the  proposition  to  the  con- 
vention as  from  Jehovah.:]:  Thereupon  the  meeting  for- 
mally gives  its  assent,  in  the  name  and  behalf  of  the  nation. § 
Moses  then  re-ascends  the  mount,  and  returns  "  the  words  of 
the  people  to  Jehovah  ;"  that  is,  carries  their  official  rej^ly  to 
him,  a  reply  made  by  the  people  tlirough  their  representa- 
tives, the  "  elders."ll  Having  thus  received  formal  assurance 
of  the  willingness  of  the  people  to  meet  his  proposal,  Jeho- 
vah completes  the  covenant  by  acceding  to  it  in  a  manner 
equally  formal.  This  he  does  by  replying  to  Moses,  as  the 
nation's  plenipotentiary  and  representative.  "  Lo  I  come 
unto  thee  in  a  thick  cloud,  that  the  j^eople  may  hear  when 
I  speak  with  thee."!" 

JSTow,  what  have  we  here  ?  To  all  intents  and  purposes, 
the  social  compact.  Here  is  a  multitude  of  people,  each 
covenanting  with  each  to  unite  together  and  form  a  civil 
community  to  be  governed  by  common  laws.  Here  is  a  par- 
tial settlement  of  the  form  of  the  commonwealth.  Here  is 
an  assent  by  the  people  to  the  rule  of  a  lawgiver  and  head, 
formally  proposed  to  their  election.  Here  is  a  covenant  be- 
tween the  sovereign  thus  chosen  and  each  member  of  the  so- 
ciety, in  which  the  former  promises  protection,  and  the  latter 
submission  and  obedience.  Hence  Jahn  denominates  this 
transaction  "  a  great  and  solemn  compact."""*  between  Jeho- 
vah, as   sovereign,  and   the   Hebrew  people,    as   subjects. 

*  Terse  3.  f  Verses  3-6.  J  Verse  7. 

§  Verse  8,  ||  Verse  8.  ^  Verse  9. 

**  Bebrew  Commonwealth,  chap.  2. 


INTRODUCTORY   ESSAY.  49 

Hence,  Dean  Graves*  speaks  of  it  as  a  "  solemn  compact," 
on  which,  he  says,  "  was  founded  the  Jewish  government." 
Hence,  Lowman  calls  it  the  "  original  contract  of  the  He- 
brew government."!  Hence  Michaelis."]:  and  our  own  Dr. 
Spring,§  speak  of  the  election  of  Jehovah  to  he  the  king  of 
the  Hebrews,  as  the  voluntary  act  of  the  Hebrew  people. 
Hence,  also,  Warburton  says,  that  "  the  crime  of  idolatry  is 
always  represented  by  the  sacred  writers  as,  in  a  peculiar 
sense,  the  transgression  of  the  covenant;"!  that  is,  the  origi- 
nal compact  of  government  between  God  and  the  Hebrew 
people.  And  hence  even  Bossuetl"  himself,  though  the  apol- 
ogist and  apostle  of  despotic  power,  says,  that  "  the  kiw  of 
Moses  is  a  true  social  compact,"  (veritable  contrat  social) ; 
and  that  "all  who  have  spoken  accurately  of  the  law,  have 
regarded  it,  in  its  origin,  as  a  solemn  pact  and  treaty,"  (pacte 
et  traite  solennel).  It  was  thus  that  idolatry  became,  in  the 
Hebrew  state,  a  civil  crime  ;  the  crime,  in  fact,  of  treason  ; 
for  as  God  was,  by  the  compact  which  we  have  been  con- 
sidering, constituted  king  of  the  Hebrews,  a  defection  from 
him  was  a  defection  from  their  rightful  sovereign.** 

Here  I  cannot  but  recal  a  conversation  which  I  had  some 
years  ago,  with  that  eminent  scholar  and  statesman,  the  late 
John  Quincy  Adams.  In  it,  he  drcM^,  with  a  luminousness 
and  power  peculiar  to  himself,  a  contrast  between  the  He- 
brew government  and  the  other  ancient  oriental  polities. 
Point  by  point,  did  he  unfold,  with  copious  eloquence,  the 
differences  between  them.  But  that  which  he  chiefly  in- 
sisted on,  was  the  fact,  that  all  the  rest  were  founded  on 

*  "  On  the  Pentateuch,"  Pt.  2,  Sec.  3. 
t  "  Civil  Government  of  the  Hebrews." 
X  "  Commentary  on  Laws  of  Moses,"  Vol.  1,  Art.  34. 
§  "  Obligations  of  the  World  to  the  Bible,"  Lect.  3. 
II  "  Divine  Legation,"  B.  5,  S.  2. 
T[  "Politique  Sacree,"  Liv,  1,  Art.  4. 
**  Jahn's   Hebrew  Commonwealth,  chap.  2.     Dr.  Vinton  himself  says  : 
•'  The  Theocracy  was  elective."   Elect.  Serm.,  p.  18. 


50  INTRODUCTOKY   ESSAY. 

force,  tliis  only  on  consent,  I  have  regretted  since,  that  I 
did  not  ask  him  to  commit  those  views  to  writing ;  and  I 
cannot  bnt  indulge  the  hope,  tliat  the  subject  will  some- 
where be  found  alluded  to  at  least,  if  not  handled  at  length, 
in  his  posthumous  papers. 

The  reader's  attention  is  invited,  in  passing,  to  one  point 
of  special  interest  in  the  narrative,  wdiich  I  have  been  ana- 
lyzing and  commenting  upon.  The  seventh  verse  of  the 
chapter  states,  that  "  Moses  called  for  the  elders  of  the 
people,"  and  laid  the  divine  proposal  before  them.  It  is 
immediately  added,  in  the  eighth  verse :  ''  And  all  the 
.  people  answered  together,  and  said,  all  that  Jehovah  hath 
spoken  we  will  do."  How  did  the  people  answer  in  this 
case?  !No  otherwise  than  by  their  representatives,  the 
"  elders."  This  is  the  first  intimation  we  find  in  history  of 
the  doctrine  of  popular  representation.  Does  it  not  prove 
Montesquieu*  to  be  mistaken  in  tlie  suj)position,  that  repre- 
sentation is  an  improvement  in  the  art  of  government,  in- 
vented by  the  moderns,  and  unknown  to  the  ancient  world  ? 
The  first  act  in  the  institution  of  the  Hebrew  state  opens 
upon  us,  with  this  doctrine,  to  all  appearance,  in  full  play. 
On  the  practice  of  representation  in  the  Israelitish  govern- 
m.ent,  I  shall  have  more  to  say  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this 
work.  The  error  of  Montesquieu  in  saying,  that  "  the  an- 
cients had  no  notion  of  a  government  founded  on  a  legislative 
body  composed  of  the  representatives  of  the  people,"  will 
then  more  plainly  appear. 

Proceeding  in  our  research,  we  come  down  to  the  Roman 
commonwealth.  The  original  of  the  Koman  government 
was,  clearly,  in  a  voluntary  convention  among  equals. 
First,  a  number  of  men  flock  together  on  the  banks  of  tlie 
Tiber,  with  the  design  of  forming  themselves  into  a  civil 
society.  Here,  obviously,  there  must  have  been  a  tacit,  if 
not  a  formal  covenant  between  them  to  that  effect.     Then, 

*"SpintofLaws,"B.  ]1,  C.  8. 


mTHODrCTOEY   ESSAF.  51 

they  deliberate  about  the  form  they  shall  give  to  their  new 
government,  and  agree  upon  establishing  a  monarchy. 
This  done,  the  work  is  completed  by  electing  Eomulus  for 
their  king,  and  investing  him  with  the  sovereignty  ;  a  pro- 
cedure which  necessarily  implies  a  mntual  promise,  viz.,  of 
protection  on  the  one  hand,  aud  of  obedience  on  the  other.* 
Here,  then,  we  have  a  state  manifestly  founded  on  voluntary 
convention;  and  the  theory  of  the  social  comj)act  has,  in  the 
Roman  polity,  a  solid  historical  basis  to  rest  upon. 

The  Venetian  state  had  a  like  origin.  It  began  by  the 
union  of  several  persons,  before  free  and  independent, 
among  whom,  previously  to  compact,  there  was  neither 
superiority  nor  subjection. f 

The  same  is  true  of  the  founders  of  Carthage.  They  also 
were  freemen.  Tliey  were  wholly  independent  of  one  another. 
The  footing  on  which  the}^  stood  was  that  of  entire  equality 
And  the  government  wdiich  they  set  up,  was  by  their 
own  consent.   It  was  the  result  of  deliberation  and  compact.:}: 

Something  like  this  is  related  by  Herodotus  to  have  hap- 
pened even  in  Persia,  during  the  interregnum  which 
preceded  the  elevation  ot  Darius  to  the  throne.  The  nobles 
debate  on  the  comparative  advantages  of  democracy,  aris- 
tocracy, and  monarchy;  and  the  monarchical  principle 
triumphs  by  the  majority  of  voices.§ 

Bracton  was  an  eminent  British  lawyer,  who  wrote  under 
Henry  HI.  He  lays  it  down  as  a  principle  of  the  British 
constitution,  that  the  king  is  subject  to  the  law.  The  reason 
which  he  assigns  as  the  basis  of  this  maxim  is,  that  "  the 
law  maketh  the  king."!  From  this  he  draws  the  inference, 
as  solid  as  it  is  liberal,  that  "  he  is  not  truly  king,  where 
will  and  pleasure  rules,  and  not  the  law."     Two  centuries 

*  Livy,  Lib.  1.    Dionys.  Halicarn.     Lib.  2. 

t  Locke  on  Civil  Government,  Chap.  7,  §  110. 

t  Justin.  Lib.  3,  Cap.  4.  I  Herod,  1.  4.  c,  44. 

li  Cited  by  Blackstoue,  Commentaries,  Book  1,  Chap.  6. 


52  INTKODUCTORY    ESSAY. 

later,  Fortescue,  having  first  accurately  distinguished 
between  a  government  introduced  by  couc|uest  and  violence, 
and  a  government  arising  from  mutual  consent,  aflirms,  that 
the  British  monarchy  belongs  to  the  latter  of  these  two 
species  of  polity.  He  then  proceeds  to  lay  down  the  prin- 
ciple, that  "the  king  of  England  must  rule  his  people 
according  to  the  decrees  of  the  laws  thereof."*  To  obviate 
all  doubt  on  this  question,  it  is  expressly  declared  by  statute 
12  and  13  AVilliam  III.,  C.  2,  "  that  the  laws  of  England  are 
the  birth-right  of  the  people  thereof;  and  all  the  kings  and 
queens,  who  shall  ascend  the  throne  of  this  realm,  ought  to 
administer  the  government  of  the  same  according  to  the 
said  laws."  Blackstone  declares,  that  this  is  not  only 
consonant  to  the  principles  of  nature,  of  liberty,  of  reason, 
and  of  society,  but  has  always  been  esteemed  an  express 
part  of  the  common  law  of  England,  even  when  prerogative 
was  at  its  highest.  The  same  great  authority  pronounces 
the  coronation  oath,  prescribed  by  the  laws  of  England  to 
the  British  sovereign  on  ascending  the  throne,  to  be,  most 
indisputably,  a  fundamental  and  original  express  contract. f 

Such  are  the  opinions  which  have  been  held  by  the 
ablest  British  lawyers,  jurists,  and  statesmen,  concerning 
the  nature  of  the  British  constitution.  They  agree  in 
representing  the  government  of  their  country  as  a  govern- 
ment arising  from  mutual  consent ;  a  government  based 
upon  compact ;  a  government  drawing  its  life  and  energy 
from  the  popular  will. 

It  has  always  been  the  doctrine  of  the  English  whigs, 
that  the  foundation  of  the  English  government  was  a  con 
tract,  expressed  on  one  side  by  the  coronation  oath,  and  on 
the  other  by  the  oath  of  allegiance ;  that  the  duties  of  this 
contract  were  mutual ;  and  that  a  sovereign  who  grossly 
abused  his  power,  might  lawfully  be   dethroned   by  his 

*  Cited  by  Blackstone. 

t  Commeutaries,  Book  1,  Chap.  6. 


ESTTRODUCTORY   ESSAY.  53 

people.  And  is  tliis  a  mere  partizan  theory  ?  No !  It  was 
solemnly  acted  upon  by  the  British  nation,  when  James  II. 
was  hurled  from  the  throne  which  he  had  forfeited  by  his 
tyranny,  and  the  crown  was  placed  upon  the  head  of 
William  of  Orange.  This  was  not  done  by  an  act  of 
mutiny  and  violence,  but  by  a  formal  vote  of  the  estates  of 
the  realm;  the  tory  party  joining  with  the  whig  party  in 
giving  the  doctrine  a  practical  embodiment  in  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  land.  In  this  very  thing,  and  in  this 
alone,  consisted  the  essence  of  the  great  revolution  of  1688. 
No  towns  were  sacked,  no  iields  were  wasted,  no  blood  was 
spilt,  in  that  revolution.  All  that  was  apparent  in  it,  was  a 
slight  deviation  from  the  usual  order  of  succession  to  the 
crown.  That  was  the  extent  of  what  appeared  to  the  eye. 
But  in  that  deviation,  trifling  as  it  seemed,  there  is  a 
distinct  proclamation  of  the  doctrine,  that  the  British  sov- 
ereign is  in  reality  elective  by  the  British  people.  It 
announced  that  the  strife  between  the  popular  element  and 
the  despotic  element  in  the  government,  which  had  lasted 
so  long,  and  been  so  prolific  in  seditions,  rebellions,  plots, 
battles,  sieges,  impeachments,  proscriptions,  and  judicial 
murders,  was  at  an  end ;  and  that  the  former,  having  at 
length  fairly  triumphed  over  the  latter,  was  thenceforth  to 
be  permitted  freely  to  develop  itself,  and  become  predomii 
nant  in  the  English  polity.* 

How  stands  this  question  as  connected  with  the  history  of 
government  in  the  nations  of  continental  EurojDC  ?  Tlie 
crusades,  combining  with  other  causes,  broke  down  tlie  sys- 
tem, and  destroyed  the  power,  of  feudalism.  As  the  fierce 
authority  and  independent  jurisdiction  of  multitudes  of  ba- 
ronical  chiefs  gave  way,  the  people,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
kings,  on  the  other,  rose  into  importance.  Power,  authority, 
political    sovereignty,   gradually    centralizing    themselves, 

*  See  the  first  vol   of  Macauley's  History,  ou  this  subject. 


54  INTRODUCTORY   ESSAY. 

came  at  length  to  be  settled  in  fewer  lia^ds  indeed,  but 
under  greater  limitations  and  witli  better  guaranties.  It  re- 
sulted, at  last,  that  there  arose  real  nations  and  real  govern- 
ments. The  form  was,  without  doubt,  in  every  instance, 
kingly.  But  these  monarchies,  springing  from  the  wreck 
of  the  feudal  system,  were  at  first  quite  diflerent  things 
from  what  they  afterwards  became.  Tliey  were  originally 
representative.  The  great  principle  of  popular  consent  was 
recognized  as  the  foiindation  of  rightful  authority.  Mon- 
archy, as  a  form  of  polity,  was  the  exjjression  and  embody- 
ment  of  the  nation's  will.  The  doctrine  that  the  king  held 
his  power,  not  by  consent  of  the  people,  but  by  a  divine 
right  personal  to  himself,  sprang  up  afterwards.  It  did  not 
belong  to  the  political  creed  of  that  age.  An  error  of  later 
growth,  it  has  filled  Europe,  in  later  times,  w^ith  popular 
commotions  and  popular  revolutions ;  but  it  is  now  well  nigh 
extinguished.  Eussia,  it  is  true,  is  an  example  of  absolutism, 
of  gigantic  proportions,  still  remaining  in  Europe  ;  but,  with 
this  exception,  the  only  kind  of  monarchy  recognized  as 
legitimate  by  enlightened  European  opinion,  is  that  which 
makes  the  sovereign  simply  the  chief  magistrate  of  the 
nation,  the  representative  of  the  majesty  of  the  state,  the 
embodiment  of  the  will  and  wisdom  of  the  people.* 

But,  leaving  these  ancient  and  foreign  examples,  let  us 
come  to  our  own  times,  and,  as  it  were,  to  our  own  hearths. 
Here  a  clearer  light  shines  upon  the  true  origin  and  nature 
of  civil  government.  Times  and  seasons  are  in  the  hands 
of  God.  Infinite  wisdom,  combined  with  infinite  power, 
sustains,  moves,  guides,  and  governs  all  things.  The  aftairs 
of  all  ages,  though  produced  immediately  by  the  voluntary 

*  On  the  subject  of  the  foregoing  paragraph,  see  an  able  address  entitled 
"  The  Social  System,"  by  Daniel  D.  Barnard,  L.L.D.  "  The  limitation  of  the 
regal  authority  was  a  first  and  essential  principle  in  all  the  Gothic  systems 
of  government  established  in  p]urope  ;  though  gradually  driven  out  and 
overborne  by  violence  and  chichane,  in  most  of  the  kingdoms  on  the  Conti- 
nent."    Bl.  Com.  B.  1.  c.  7. 


mTKODUCTORY   ESSA.y.  55 

iigency  of  innumerable  actors,  nevertheless  fulfil  the  divine 
counsel,  and  carry  forward  the  divine  plan.  Great  and 
manifold  were  the  purposes,  which  the  divine  providence 
comprehended  in  the  discovery  of  America  and  the  plant- 
ing of  the  British  colonies  on  its  shores.  Certainly,  not 
among  the  least  of  these  purposes,  were  improvements  in 
the  science  and  art  of  governing ;  the  discovery  of  new 
principles  of  civil  polity,  the  freer  and  more  energetic  appli- 
cation of  principles  known  before.  Previously  to  the  coloni- 
zation of  America  by  Englishmen,  shafts  of  light  on  the 
subject  of  government  had  been  poured  down  upon  some 
generous  and  gifted  souls.  Such  shafts  of  light  and  power 
Ave  find  in  the  works  of  Bacon,  Harrington,  Sidney,  Milton, 
Locke,  Grotius,  PuflFendorf,  and  Montesquieu.  But  as  the 
sunlight  is  often  seen  amidst  streams  of  vapor  drawn  from 
the  earth  and  rising  into  clouds,  so  the  conceptions  of  the 
greatest  geniuses  on  theories  of  government  were  obscured 
by  folds  of  vaporous  prejudice,  gathered  from  existing  mon- 
archical institutions.  But  when  the  sun  of  American  free- 
dom culminated,  the  mists  of  prejudice  melted  away,  and 
the  true  theory  of  political  organizations  appeared  like  a 
"  glorious  landscape  amidst  clear  shining  after  rain."* 

The  very  first  chapter  of  I^ew  England  history  opens  upon 
as  with  a  bright  light  shining  upon  the  subject  of  our  in- 
quiry. Before  the  pilgrim  fathers  disembarked  from  the 
Mayflower,  on  the  eleventh  of  November,  1620,  o-ff  Cape 
Cod,  they  framed  and  subscribed  a  formal  social  compact. 
Here  is  an  extract  from  that  instrument :  "  We,  whose  names 
are  under-written,  *****  do,  by  these  presents,  solemn- 
ly and  mutually,  in  the  presence  of  God  and  one  of  another, 
covenant  and  combine  ourselves  together  into  a  civil  body 
politic,  *  *  *  *  and  by  virtue  hereof,  to  enact,  constitute 
and  frame  such  just  and  equal  laws,  ordinances,  acts,  consti- 
tutions, oflices  from  time  to  time,  as  shall  be  thought  most 
*  Cbeever's  Journal  of  the  Pilgrims,  Pref. 


56  mTKODrCTORY    ESSAY. 

meet  and  convenient  for  the  general  good  of  tlie  colony 
unto  which  we  promise  all  due  submission  and  obedience. 
In  witness  whereof  we  have  hereunder  subscribed  our 
names."*  To  this  remarkable  document  were  appended  the 
names  of  thirty-two  persons,  that  is,  of  all  the  male  adults 
on  board  the  ship ;  the  whole  number  of  souls  on  board 
being  a  hundred  and  one.  Here  the  supposition  made  a 
little  while  ago  of  a  hundred  persons  taking  possession  of  a 
desert  island,  and,  by  compact,  forming  themselves,  under 
the  necessities  of  the  case,  into  a  civil  state,  is  fulfilled 
almost  to  the  letter. 

The  theory  ot  the  social  compact  forms  the  basis  of  the 
civil  polity  established  by  every  state  in  the  American 
union,  and  is  fully  embodied  in  the  constitution  of  the 
general  government. 

The  constitution  of  Massachusetts  is  very  explicit.  It 
declares  :  "  The  body  politic  is  formed  by  a  voluntary  asso- 
ciation of  individuals.  It  is  a  social  compact,  by  which  the 
whole  people  covenants  with  each  citizen,  and  each  citizen 
with  the  whole  people,  that  all  shall  be  governed  by  certain 
laws  for  the  common  good."  f 

The  constitution  of  New  York,  framed  in  lYYY,  declares  : 
"  No  authority  shall,  on  any  pretence  whatever,  be  exercised 
over  the  peoj^le  or  members  of  this  state,  but  such  as  shall 
be  derived  from  and  granted  by  them."  "The  style  of  all 
laws  shall  be  as  follows ;  to  wit :  '  Be  it  enacted  by  the 
people  of  the  state  of  New  York,  represented  in  senate  and 
assembly.'  All  writs  and  other  proceedings  shall  run  in  the 
name  of  the  j^eople  of  the  state  of  New  York.":}; 

Tlie  constitution  of  New  Jersey,  adopted  in  1776,  holds 
the  following  language:  "Whereas  all  the  constitutional 
authority,  ever  possessed  by  the  kings  of  Great  Britain,  over 

*  Idem,  pp.  30,  31. 

f  Constitutions  of  the  United  States,  Carey,  Stewart  and  Co.,  1791,  p.  4. 

X  Idem,  pp.  49,  57. 


INTKODUCTOKY   ESSAY.  57 

these  colonies  or  tlieir  other  dominions,  was,  by  compact, 
derived  from  the  people,  and  held  of  them,  for  the  common 
interest  of  the  whole  society ; — allegiance  and  protection 
are,  in  the  nature  of  things,  reciprocal  ties,  each  equally 
depending  upon  the  other,  and  liable  to  be  dissolved  by  the 
other's  being  refused  or  withdrawn."  It  further  afhrms, 
that,  since  the  com23act  has  been  broken  by  the  king  of 
Great  Britain,  "  all  civil  authority  under  him  is  necessarily 
at  an  end,  and  a  dissolution  of  government  in  each  colony 
has  consequently  taken  place."* 

The  constitution  of  Pennsylvania,  ratified  September  2, 
1790,  says  :  "  All  power  is  inherent  in  the  people  ;  and  all 
free  governments  are  founded  on  their  authority,  and  insti- 
tuted for  their  peace,  safety,  and  happiness.  For  the 
advancement  of  those  ends,  they  have,  at  all  times,  an 
inalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to  alter,  reform,  or 
abolish  their  government,  in  such  manner  as  they  may 
think  proper."f 

The  constitution  of  Delaware,  framed  and  adopted  in 
1776,  asserts :  "  All  government,  of  right,  originates  from 
the  people,  is  founded  in  compact  only,  and  instituted  solely 
for  the  good  of  the  whole.":}: 

The  constitution  of  Maryland  affirms  the  same  doctrine  in 
the  same  words.  It  adds :  "  The  right,  in  the  people,  to 
participate  in  the  legislature,  is  the  best  security  of  liberty, 
and  the  foundation  of  all  free  government."§ 

To  Virginia  belongs  the  immortal  honor  of  being  the  first 
of  the  colonies,  in  obedience  to  the  recommendation  of  the 
continental  congress  of  May  15th,  1776,  to  renounce  the 
colonial  name  and  condition,  and  to  form  herself  into  a  free, 
sovereign,  and  independent  commonwealth.  Her  constitu- 
tion was  adopted  the  day  after  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence.    The  members  of  the  convention  who  framed  it, 

*  Idem,  p.  61.      j  Idem,  p.  76.      J  Idem,  p.  82.      |  Idem,  pp.  92,  93. 


58  IN-TKODUCTORY   ESSAY. 

speak  of  themselves  as  ^'  tlie  delegates  and  representatives 
of  the  good  people  of  Yirginia,"  and  say  that,  as  such,  they 
"  do  declare  the  future  form  of  government  of  Yirginia  to 
be,"  &c.,  &c.* 

The  constitution  of  North  Carolina,  adopted  in  1T76, 
utters  the  sentiment  of  that  state  in  the  following  terms : 
"All  political  power  is  vested  in,  and  derived  from,  the 
people."  "  Allegiance  and  protection  are,  in  their  nature, 
reciprocal,  and  the  one  should  of  right  be  refused,  when  the 
other  is  withdrawn. "f 

The  constitution  of  South  Carolina,  formed  in  1790,  says : 
"  All  power  is  originally  vested  in  the  people  ;  and  all  free 
governments  are  founded  on  their  authority,  and  are  insti- 
tuted for  their  peace,  safety,  and  happiness.":}: 

The  constitutions  of  New  Hampshire  and  Georgia  contain 
no  declaration  of  rights,  but  the  delegates  who  framed  and 
adopted  them,  speak  of  themselves  as  "  empowered  by  the 
people,"  and  as  acting  by  virtue  of  the  powers  vested  in 
them  by  the  people  in  what  they  did.§ 

Here  we  have,  from  eleven  of  the  thirteen  original 
colonies,  explicit  declarations  of  the  doctrine  of  the  popular 
sovereignty.  Here  we  have  eleven  old  governments 
abolished  by  the  people,  and  new  governments  instituted  in 
their  place  on  the  basis  of  express  compact.  Here  we  have 
a  perfect  exemplification  of  the  maxim,  that  the  popular 
will  is  the  fountain  of  all  just  power  and  authority,  in  the 
state.  Connecticut  and  Khode  Island  retained  the  same 
constitutions  which  they  had  before.  Tliere  was  not  the 
same  necessity  for  altering  them  as  existed  in  the  other 
colonies.  Tlie  charters  of  these  two  colonies  reserved  to  the 
crown  no  control  over  the  internal  policy  emanating  from 
the  colonial  legislative  bodies,  nor  even  any  share  in  the 
executive  power.     The  acts  of  their  legislatures   did   not 

*  Constitutions  of  the  United  States.  Carey,  Stewart  and  Go's.  ed.  p.  112. 

t  Idem,  pp.  116, 119.  J  Idem,  p.  135.  g  Idem,  pp.  1, 136. 


INTKODUCTOKY   ESSAY.  59 

require  the  royal  sanction,  and  their  executive  officers  were 
chosen  by  the  colonists  themselves.  Nothing,  therefore, 
was  wanting  to  their  convenient  action  as  states,  hut  the 
casting  oif  of  their  dependence  on  Great  Britain. 

But  not  only  are  the  constitutions  of  the  several  states 
based  upon  the  principle  of  the  social  compact, — the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  itself,  that  master-piece  of 
political  wisdom,  is  neither  more,  nor  less,  nor  other,  than 
the  social  comj^act.  "We,  the  people  of  the  United  States," 
it  declares,  "  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish 
justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common 
defence,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  bless- 
ings of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and 
establish  this  constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America."* 
The  people  ordain  and  establish  a  supreme  government! 
Sublime  conception  !  Glorious  truth !  Now,  for  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  the  world,  so  distinctly  and  broadly 
announced  as  the  only  legitimate  basis  of  civil  society,  the 
only  just  foundation  of  political  government.f 

But,  although  the  doctrine  that  the  original  of  all  just 
government  is  in  the  people,  has  been  more  emphatically 
asserted,  and  more  comprehensively  acted  upon,  by  the 
American  republics,  than  by  any  other  nation,  yet  has  the 
doctrine  at  all  times  maintained  a  struggle,  more  or  less 
vigorous,  more  or  less  successful,  against  the  doctrine  of  a 
divine  right  to  absolute  power.  It  is  the  struggle  between 
these  two  principles, — the  principle  of  the  social  comj)act 
and  the  principle  of  absolutism  in  government, — which  has 
caused  most  of  the  revolutions  of  modern  times.  It  is  this 
struggle  which  has  made  a  battle-field  of  almost  every  plain 

*  Idem,  p.  163. 

f  It  is  not,  of  course,  meant  here,  that  this  principle  was  not  as  distinctly 
asserted  in  the  state  constitutions  adopted  before  the  formation  of  the  federal 
constitution  ;  but  that  it  was  reserved  for  America  to  proclaim  it  in  a  more 
distinct  and  emphatic  manner  than  any  previous  government  had  ever  done. 


60  INTEODrCTOKT   ESSAY. 

in  Europe.  It  is  this  struggle  which  has  brouglit  to  the 
scaffold,  a  Hamden,  a  Sidney,  a  Eussel,  an  Emmett,  and  a 
whole  army  of  political  martyrs,  second  in  dignity  only  to 
that  other  illustrious  throng  of  Christian  witnesses,  who 
have  sealed  their  testimony  with  their  blood.  It  is  this 
struggle,  which  three  years*  ago  lighted  a  train  in  the  city 
of  Paris,  that  has  exploded  beneath  almost  every  throne  in 
Europe,  laying  some  of  them  in  ruins,  and  so  shattering 
others,  that,  des23ite  the  eclipse  which,  for  the  moment, 
obscures  the  prospect  of  the  popular  cause,  they  will  never 
be  able  to  regain  either  their  former  power  or  their  former 
splendor.  It  is  this  struggle,  w^hich  drove  the  Pope  from  the 
Vatican  in  the  liveiy  of  a  servant ;  which  has  despoiled  him 
in  a  great  measure  of  his  temporal  power,  except  as  it  is 
defended  by  foreign  bayonets;  and  which  has  made  to 
tremble  even  the  foundations  of  his  spiritual  dominion. 

The  principle  of  absolutism, — that  dogma  of  centuries, — 
has,  I  believe  in  God,  received  its  death-blow.  Mind  has 
been  stirred.  Tliought  has  been  awakened.  Inquiry  has 
been  set  on  foot.  Railroads  are  everywhere  constructed, 
on  which  ideas  travel,  even  more  than  men  and  merchan- 
dize. ISTations  are  thus  intermingled  and  interlaced  in  an 
unprecedented  manner.  Every  man  has  an  interest  in 
every  other  man.  Every  man  feels,  that  he  has  a  relation- 
ship to  the  whole  of  humanity.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  that  in 
proportion  as  this  sentiment  of  union  and  brotherhood 
among  nations  extends  its  sway,  tliere  springs  up,  in  each 
individual  mind,  the  sense  of  personal  dignity  and  personal 
responsibility.  In  former  ages,  men  were  like  herds  of 
cattle.  Tliey  worked  in  masses.  They  were  a  part  of  the 
freehold,  Tliey  had  a  master,  an  owner.  They  were 
kindred  to  the  brutes.  Now,  each  one  says,  or  feels  :  "1 
am  somebody.  I  am  not  a  chattel.  I  have  a  mind,  a  soul, 
a  conscience.     I  am  a  free  agent.     I  can  think.     I  go  erect. 

*  This  was  written  in  the  early  part  of  1851. 


INTRODUCTORY   ESSAY.  61 

I  am  not  prone,  like  the  beasts.  'No  man  owns  me.  Mo 
man  is  my  master."  What  a  power  there  is  in  this !  It  has 
lifted  crowns  from  the  head  of  princes.  It  has  wrested  the 
sceptre  from  the  grasp  of  kings.  It  has  made  thrones  topple 
and  fall. 

The  slumber  of  ages  is  broken.  Tlie  masses  have  discov- 
ered, that  political  sovereignty  is  in  them  ;  that  no  man  has 
the  right,  irrespective  of  the  assent  of  the  governed,  to  rule 
his  fellow-men.  The  iron  barrier,  which  hitherto  has  shut 
them  out  from  their  rights,  if  not  yet  broken  down,  has  been 
terribly  shattered.  Tlie  dawn  of  a  rational  freedom  is 
visible  above  the  political  horizon.  The  potentates,  who 
feel  the  ground  giving  way  under  them,  and  power  stealing 
from  their  grasp,  chafe  and  roar  and  gnash  their  teeth.  By 
combined  and  extraordinary  efforts,  by  a  lavish  expenditure 
of  blood  and  treasure,  they  have  succeeded  in  giving  a  check 
to  the  onward  progress  of  events.  They  have  produced  an 
apparent  quiet,  and  flatter  themselves,  that  the  spirit  of 
liberty  is  crushed.  Yain  toil !  Delusive  confidence  !  The 
seeming  calm  is  but  the  stillness  which  precedes  the  earth- 
quake or  the  hurricane.  There  is  a  power  behind  the 
throne  greater  than  the  throne.  It  is  the  power  of  indivi- 
dual man  ;  the  power  of  a  newly  awakened  consciousness  of 
manly  dignity ;  the  power  of  a  felt  personal  responsibility ; 
the  power  of  a  great  and  vital  truth,  long  smothered  be- 
neath the  abuses  of  ancient  dynasties,  but  now  breaking 
through  the  pressure,  and  asserting  its  vivifying  force. 

"Writers  speculate  on  coming  events,  and  wonder  whether 
the  people  of  Europe  are  prepared  for  the  enjoyment  of 
liberty  and  the  exercise  of  self-government.  Perhaps  they 
are  not  prepared.  Probably  they  are  not  prepared.  It 
would  be  strange  if  they  were  prepai*ed.  They  must  be 
schooled  to  this  end.  They  must  be  prepared  for  it,  as  the 
Israelites,  as  our  fathers,  as  all  others  in  this  fallen  world 
have  been  prepared  for  freedom,  by  a  baptism  of  suffering. 


62  INTKODUCTOKY   ESSAY. 

But  prepared  or  unprepared  now,  both  liberty  and  self- 
government  will  at  length  come.  It  is  not  in  tbe  people, 
but  the  principle,  that  I  confide.  Principles,  founded  in 
truth,  are  stronger  than  men.  They  are  stronger  even  than 
men's  vices.  They  seem  to  be  invested  with  a  portion  of 
that  omnipotence,  which  belongs  to  him  who  ordained  them. 
The  great  principle  of  popular  right  and  popular  sovereignty, 
in  some  form  or  other,  is  predestined  to  a  universal  triumph. 
It  may  achieve  this  triumph  in  one  century,  or  it  may  not 
achieve  it  in  five  ;  but  its  ultimate  success  is  as  certain  as 
its  truth.  God  never  made  a  truth,  into  which  he  did  not 
put  a  power,  that  sooner  or  later  would  cause  it  to  prevail. 
Despotism,  therefore,  will  have  to  bow  before  the  majesty 
and  supremacy  of  the  people.  Even  the  frozen  gates  of 
Siberia  shall  yet  dissolve  and  disappear  beneath  the  genial 
warmth  of  the  sun  of  freedom.  Tyranny,  with  its  chains 
and  its  blood,  will  every  where  come  to  an  end.  Humanity 
will  recover  her  rights.  And  an  enfranchised  world  shall 
yet  exult  in  the  liberty  and  happiness,  for  which  it  has 
sighed  and  struggled  through  many  a  weary  century  of 
injustice  and  oppression. 

We  are  now,  I  think,  prepared  to  say,  whether  or  not  the 
theory  of  the  social  compact  is  "  historically  untrue."  "We 
have  traced  this  compact  in  the  Israelitish  government.  "VVe 
have  traced  it  in  the  institution  of  the  Roman  monarchy  and 
the  Yenetian  and  Carthagenian  republics.  "We  have  seen 
it,  in  the  opinion  of  such  men  as  Bracton,  Fortescue,  and 
Blackstone,  entering,  from  the  first,  as  a  vital  element  into 
the  constitution  of  Great  Britain;  and  we  have  seen  it,  as  it 
were,  by  the  entire  British  nation  formally  ingrafted  into 
the  fundamental  law  of  the  realm,  in  the  transfer  of  the 
crown  of  England  from  the  head  of  James  II,  to  that  of 
"William  of  Orange.  We  have  found  it  to  underlie  the 
monarchies  of  continental  Europe,  which  sprang  up  after 
the  overthrow  of  the  feudal  system.     We  have  beheld 


INTEODUCTOET   ESSAY.  63 

after  a  long  eclipse,  re-aj^pearing,  and  successfully  vindicat- 
ing its  truth  and  power  in  the  European  revolutions  of  these 
later  ageb,  and  in  the  general  substitution  of  constitutional 
monarchies  for  the  iron  despotisms  of  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries.  "We  have  followed  it  in  its  passage 
over  the  ocean  billows,  in  the  brave  hearts  and  strong  arms, 
which  the  immortal  Mayflower  bore  to  this  western  clime. 
And  we  have  heard  it  distinctly  proclaimed  by  thirteen 
sovereign  States  and  one  great  republic  embracing  them  all, 
as  the  only  just  foundation  of  political  government,  the  only 
true  spring  and  source  of  political  power.  "Arbitrary 
power,"  says  Burke,  "  is  a  tiling  which  neither  any  man  can 
hold,  nor  any  man  can  give.  No  man  can  lawfully  govern  • 
himself  according  to  his  own  will ;  much  less,  can  one  per- ; 
son  be  governed  by  the  will  of  another."  And  again : 
"  Law  and  arbitrary  power  are  in  eternal  enmity.  Kame 
me  a  magistrate,  and  I  will  name  property.  Name  me 
power,  and  I  will  name  protection.  It  is  a  contradiction 
in  terms,  it  is  wickedness  in  politics,  it  is  blasphemy  in 
religion,  to  say  that  any  man  can  have  arbitrary  power.  In 
every  patent  of  office,  duty  is  included.  For  what  else  does 
a  magistrate  exist  ?  To  suppose  for  power,  is  an  absurdity 
in  idea.  Judges  are  guarded  and  governed  by  the  eternal 
laws  of  justice,  to  which  we  all  are  subject.  "We  may  bite 
our  chains,  if  we  will ;  but  we  shall  be  made  to  know  our- 
selves, and  be  taught  that  man  is  born  to  be  governed  by 
law ;  and  he  that  will  substitute  will  in  the  place  of  it,  is  an 
enemy  to  God."* 

The  allegation,  that  the  theory  of  the  social  compact  is 
"  historically  untrue,"  seems  to  me  so  far  from  being  a  fact 
of  history,  that  there  is  no  constitutional  government  in  the 
world,  nor  ever  has  been,  which  is  not,  or  was  not,  based 
iipon  such  compact.  Every  such  government,  whatever  its 
form,  is  created  by  the  act  of  the  people,  is  continued  by  the 
*  Works,  V.  7,  pp.  118, 119,  Little  &  Brown. 


64  INTKODUCTOKY   ESSAY. 

will  of  the  people,  and  represents  the  august  majesty  of  the 
people.  Hence,  perhaps,  that  apparently  paradoxical  max- 
im,— ^"  rex  est  populus," — the  king  is  the  people.  It  matters 
not  whether  a  formal  convention  can  be  traced  in  the  incep- 
tion of  the  government,  nor  whether,  in  point  of  fact,  any 
such  formal  convention  ever  passed.  It  is  enough  that  we 
find  a  people  actually  living  under  established  laws,  and 
peacefully  pursuing  their  several  vocations  under  their  pro- 
tection. The  covenants,  constituting  the  social  compact, 
must,  in  such  case,  be  pre-supposed.  "Whether  these  cove- 
nants were  formal  or  implied,  express  or  silent,  does  not  alter 
the  essential  nature  of  the  transaction.  The  doctrine  of 
tacit  covenants,  is  by  no  means  a  novelty  to  statesmen  and 
civilians.  The  whole  system  of  the  common  law,  with  its 
rich  train  of  blessings,  is  built  upon  nothing  else  but  the 
doctrine  of  silent  covenants.* 

The  persons  who  instituted  the  bodies  politic,  known  as 
the  commonwealths  of  Virginia  and  Massachusetts,  did  so 
by  express  compact,  Bu't  their  descendants,  without  such 
formality,  do,  by  silent  acquiescence  in  the  established  order 
of  things,  as  really  contract,  as  the  original  founders.  Fur- 
thermore, since  every  civil  community  is  fixed  in  a  certain 
locality,  it  is  considered  a  law  in  all  states,  that  whoever 

*  "  The  re-union  of  families,  by  whatever  means  it  was  brought  about, 
could  not  have  taken  place  but  by  an  agreement  of  wills  on  certain  general 
objects.  When  we  view  society  as  the  effect  of  unanimous  concord,  it 
necessarily  supposes  certain  covenants.  These  covenants  imply  conditions. 
It  is  these  conditions,  which  are  to  be  considered  as  the  first  laws,  by  which 
societies  were  governed.  These  [covenants]  also  are  the  origin  of  all  the 
political  regulations,  which  have  been  successively  established.  It  was  not 
necessary,  that  either  the  first  covenants,  or  the  conditions  on  which  they 
were  founded,  should  be  express.  It  was  sufficient,  in  many  cases,  that  they 
were  tacitly  understood.  *  *  *  *  The  first  laws  of  society  were  naturally 
established  by  a  tacit  consent,  a  kind  of  engagement,  to  which  men  are 
naturally  very  much  inclined.  Even  political  authority  was  established  iu 
this  manner,  by  a  tacit  agreement  between  those  who  submitted  to  it  and 
those  who  exercised  it." — Goguet's  Origin  of  Laws,  B.  1. 


INTEOrUCTORT   ESSAY.  65 

comes  within  the  proper  limits  of  such  a  commuuitj  to  reside, 
does,  bj  this  very  act,  surrender  his  natural  liberty,  and 
silently  consent  to  the  government  there  established. 
Hence  Pufi'endorf  lays  down  the  principle,  that  they  who 
join  themselves  to  a  state  already  settled,  are  not  less  parties 
to  the  social  compact,  than  they  who,  by  assembling  and 
uniting  themselves  together,  formed  it  at  the  beginning.* 

Does  any  one  say, — "  Whither  shall  I  go,  if  I  do  not  con- 
sent to  the  social  compact?"  The  answer  is:  "  You  must 
go  where  there  is  no  civil  society."  Is  it  replied, — "  That  is 
impossible?"  I  admit  it.  But  it  is  just  such  another  im- 
possibility as  stealing  with  impunity.  The  necessity  of 
living  under  government,  and  the  necessity  of  respecting  the 
rights  of  property,  are  conditions  of  humanity,  originating 
in  the  will  of  the  Creator  ;  and  both  conditions  spring  from 
the  same  benevolent  regard  to  the  welfare  and  happiness  of 
his  rational  creatures. 

But  the  objection,  that  the  theory  of  the  social  compact 
is  historically  untrue,  is  not  the  only  one,  that  has  been 
urged  against  it.  It  is  alleged,  that  the  theory  is  anti-chris- 
tian ;  that  it  leaves  no  place  for  the  idea  of  an  organic  unity 
in  the  state ;  that  it  is  productive  of  injustice  towards 
minorities ;  that  it  makes  the  relation  between  the  rulers 
and  the  ruled  a  purely  commercial  one  ;  that  it  makes  revo- 
lution the  rule  of  political  life,  and  obedience  the  exception  ; 
and  that  it  converts  capital  punishment  into  a  mere  aggres- 
sion upon  individual  right.f 

Let  us  examine  these  several  additional  grounds  of  objec- 
tion to  the  doctrine  of  the  social  compact. 

It  is  alleged,  that  the  theory  is  anti-christian  and  semi- 
atheistic,  leaving  no  place  for  the  divine  element  in  govern- 
ment, so  much  insisted  upon  by  St.  Paul,  and  other  inspired 
writers.     It  is  even  alleged  to  be  infidelity's  great  battering 

*  "  Law  of  Xature  and  Nations,"  Lib.  7,  Cap.    4,  §  20. 
t  "  Religious  Theory  of  Civ.  Government."     Passim. 


66  INTKODUCTOBY   ESSAY. 

ram,  with  which  she  has  beaten  down  the  firm  bulwarks  of 
society,  as  in  the  bloody  and  detestable  J^rench  revolution 
of  the  last  century.* 

Tliis  objection,  if  founded  in  truth,  decides  the  question. 
The  old  theory  of  Filmer,  which  makes  the  sovereignty  of  a 
nation  a  personal  divine  right,  must  be  revived.  King 
James's  dogma,  that  "  it  is  presumption  and  sedition  to  dis- 
pute what  a  king  may  do  in  the  height  of  his  power,"  must 
be  enforced.  Mankind  must  bow,  with  what  grace  they 
may,  to  a  doctrine  which  extinguishes  their  rights,  and 
makes  all  resistance  to  the  powers  that  be  rebellion  against 
God.  For,  of  necessity,  the  sovereign  authority  of  a  state 
must  either  be  derived  from  the  people ;  or  it  must  belong 
by  an  original  divine  right,  to  some  particular  person  or 
persons  in  the  state ;  or  it  must  be  usui'ped,  and  wrongfully 
held  by  force  of  arms  against  the  consent  and  choice  of  the 
nation. 

But,  in  truth,  the  objection  is  founded  in  a  fallacy.  Tlie 
fallacy  consists  in  a  misapprehension  of  the  mode  in  which 
the  divine  will  concerning  government  is  ascertained.  If 
God,  by  an  express  revelation,  designated  the  persons  in 
every  state  to  whom  the  supreme  authority  should  be  en- 
trusted, then  the  objection  would  hold.  But  the  divine 
right  of  government  is  not  so  ascertained.  It  is  originally 
through  the  suggestion  of  reason,  that  the  will  of  God  con- 
cerning government  discovers  itself.  Independently  of  reve- 
lation, we  know  with  certainty,  that  it  is  the  divine  will 
that  government  should  exist,  since  the  end  for  which  man- 
kind was  created  could  not  otherwise  be  attained.  But  God 
permits  men  freely  to  institute  such  polities  as  they  please, 
and  to  invest  whom  they  will  with  the  sovereignty ;  and  his 
sanction  is  given  to  all  forms  of  government,  all  systems  of 
law,  and  all  modes  of  administration,  which  do  not  contra 
vene  the  end,  for  which  he  made  man.  Therefore,  since  the 
*  "Eeligious  Theory  of  Civil  Government."    Pp.  17, 18, 19,  20,  21. 


INTKODUCTOKT   ESSAY.  67 

author  of  our  being  has  been  graciously  pleased  to  allow  so 
much  freedom  to  his  rational  creation,  no  theory  of  govern- 
ment, which  is  not  subversive  of  justice  and  human  happi- 
ness, can  be  anti-christian  or  atheistic. 

The  social  compact,  says  the  objection,  is  anti-christian; 
negatively  atheistic  ;  infidelity's  battering-ram.  How  does 
this  statement  tally  with  the  fact,  that  since  the  doctrine  of 
the  popular  sovereignty  has  gained  so  general  a  prevalence, 
society  has  been  steadily  advancing  in  religion,  morals, 
science,  letters,  art,  jurisprudence,  philanthropy,  refinement, 
and  whatever  else  constitutes  the  true  dignity  and  haj)pine8S 
of  man?  The  social,  moral,  and  religious  progress  of  our 
race,  has  never  been  so  conspicuous,  as  during  the  last  half 
century.  The  world  has  never  before  been  so  active  in  doing 
good.  The  zeal  of  science,  the  activity  of  commerce,  the 
comprehensive  and  far-reaching  enterprises  of  capital,  are 
rivaled  by  the  ardor,  the  energy,  and  the  breadth  of  its  be- 
nevolent undertakings.  Philanthropy  has  sought  out  the 
Im'king  places  of  vice,  shame,  want,  and  misery,  and  is  in- 
tent on  elevating  all  the  most  degraded  members  of  society 
in  their  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral  condition.  And 
religion,  awaking  as  from  the  slumber  of  centuries,  and 
catching  her  inspiration  from  ancient  prophecy,  has  started 
upon  the  sublime  and  glorious  enterprise  of  evangelizing  the 
world.  Surely  this  does  not  look  as  if  the  canker  of  irre- 
ligion  were  at  work  in  the  very  heart  of  our  social  systems, 
in  the  very  frame  and  texture  of  our  political  organizations. 
Where  is  there  less  of  infidelity,  where  more  of  spiritual 
religion,  where  a  higher  reverence  for  law,  than  in  the  great 
JSTorth  American  republic?  Yet  here  the  social  compact  is 
the  only  recognized  basis  of  civil  society. 

As  it  respects  the  terrible  scenes  of  the  French  revolution, 
it  was  not  the  theory  of  the  social  compact,  it  was  not  the 
doctrine  of  the  popular  sovereignty,  that  produced  them.  It 
was  the  depraved  heart  of  the  nation.     It  was  the  forma' 


68  mTKODUCTORY   ESSAY. 

abiogation  of  the  ChriBtiun  religion.  It  was  the  deification 
of  human  reason.  It  was  the  writings  of  a  Diderot  and  a 
Yoltaire,  not  those  of  a  Locke  or  a  Sidney,  that  wrought  the 
mischief.  The  truth  is,  it  is  in  no  case  the  government  that 
makes  the  manners,  but  always  the  manners  that  make  the 
government.  The  real  nature  of  a  government  can  never  be 
known  from  the  name  it  bears ;  for,  as  the  people  are,  such, 
by  an  inevitable  law,  will  the  government  be,  call  it  by  what 
title  you  will. 

Again  it  is  said,  that  the  theory  of  the  social  compact 
leaves  no  place  for  the  idea  of  an  organic  unity  in  the  state.* 
But  why  not  ?  One  of  the  essential  covenants  of  this  com- 
pact is,  that  each  member  of  the  body  politic  submit  his 
individual  will  to  the  will  of  the  recognized  head  of  the 
state ;  whether  such  head  be  one  man,  one  or  more  councils 
of  sages,  or  the  assembled  people,  acting  in  an  organic  ca- 
pacity. And  what  other  definition  can  be  given  of  organic 
unity  ?  "When  each  member  of  a  civil  society  submits  his 
will  to  the  will  of  a  man,  of  a  council  of  senators,  or  of  an 
assembly  of  the  people,  whatever  this  person,  this  council, 
or  this  assembly  resolves,  in  matters  relating  to  the  common 
safety,  is  deemed  the  will  of  all  in  general,  and  of  each  in 
particular.  It  is  a  fundamental  principle,  a  principle  uni- 
versally recognized  and  acted  upon  in  civil  affairs,  that, 
when  I  have  delegated  my  power  to  another,  his  act  and 
choice  must  be  interpreted  as  mine.  A  society  such  as  that 
described  above,  and  exactly  such  an  one  is  formed  by  the 
social  compact,  being  actuated  by  one  soul  and  possessing 
one  will,  is  a  true  moral  person,  concerning  whom  it  seems 
quite  proper  to  predicate  organic  unity.  It  is  not,  indeed, 
a  unity  such  as  the  world  has  so  often  seen,  in  which  vast 
multitudes  of  human  beings  are  delivered  up  to  the  arbitrary 
will  of  one  man.  It  is  a  unity,  eflfected  by  the  abolition  of 
every  thing  of  the  nature  of  caste ;  a  unity,  founded  on  the 
*  "  Religious  Theory  of  Civil  Government,"  p.  30- 


ESTTKODUCTOKY    ESSAT.  69 

principle  of  political  equality ;  a  unity,  where  the  same 
fundamental  rights  are  recognized  as  belonging  to  all — the 
same  fundamental  duties  as  binding  upon  all ;  a  unity,  with- 
out either  hereditary  dignities  or  hereditary  inferiority  ;  a 
unity,  in  short,  in  which  the  whole  people  forms  the  state, 
contrary  to  what  haj)pens  in  despotic  governments,  where 
the  monarch  is  the  state,  as  Louis  XIV,  of  France,  distinct- 
ly avowed  himself  to  be. 

It  is  further  objected,  that  the  theory  of  the  social  com- 
pact, resolving  all  law  into  the  majority  of  wills,  leaves  the 
minority  without  remedy  for  the  wrongs,  that  may  be  inflic- 
ted upon  them.*  What  redress  may  be  open  to  the  minority, 
or  wliat  restraint  may  be  laid  upon  the  power  of  the  ma- 
jority, can,  in  any  given  case,  be  known  only  from  an  ex- 
amination of  the  internal  structure  of  the  state.  The  social 
compact  leaves  a  wide  range  for  the  details  of  political 
organization.  It  will  admit  quite  as  many  checks  and  bal- 
ances as  any  other  theory  of  government.  The  establish- 
jnent  of  three  independent  branches  of  power — executive, 
legislative,  and  judicial — having  its  foundation  in  nature,  is 
the  most  efi'ectual  contrivance,  ever  yet  devised,  by  the  wit 
of  man,  to  restrain  the  tyranny  of  majorities,  and  protect  the 
rights  of  minorities.  Accordingly,  nowhere  else  is  eitlier  the 
restraint  or  the  protection  as  efl'ective  as  under  the  English 
and  American  constitutions,  where  this  three-fold  distribution 
of  power  obtains,  and  where,  also,  the  principle  of  the  social 
compact,  is  most  operative.  But  granting  the  truth  of  the 
objection,  has  it  never  occurred  to  writers  who  urge  it,  that 
the  only  difference  between  a  government  admitting  and  a 
government  rejecting  the  principle  of  the  social  compact 
would  be,  that  in  the  former  the  minority,  and  in  the  latter 
the  majority,  would  be  without  redress  of  wrong? 

Another  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  the  social  compact 
is,  that  it  makes  the  relation  between  the  governors  and  the 
«  Idem,  p.  20. 


70  INTRODUCTOKY   ESSAY. 

governed  a  purely  commercial  one,  and  so  tends  to  detract 
from  the  proper  sanction  of  civil  power.*  Such  an  objec- 
tion is  more  likely  to  lower  the  standard  of  commercial 
virtue,  than  to  raise  that  of  political  virtue.  It  does  not 
seem  wise  to  discriminate  between  the  sanctions  annexed  to 
moral  duties.  It  is  a  dangerous,  as  well  as  unscriptural, 
distinction,  which  the  church  of  Rome  has  made  between 
mortal  and  venial  sins.  "  Obey  magistrates,"  and  "  defraud 
not,"  are  laws  enacted  by  one  and  the  same  authority.  The 
violation  of  the  latter,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  is  just  as  ab- 
horrent to  the  supreme  lawgiver,  as  the  violation  of  the 
former.  Blackstone  expressly  lays  down  the  doctrine,  that 
the  obligation  of  a  contract  is  equal,  in  point  of  conscience, 
to  the  obligation  of  a  law.f  And  in  the  suggestion  made 
above,  viz. :  that  both  obligations  emanate  from  the  same 
source,  w^e  have  the  reason  of  this  equality. 

It  is  further  objected  to  the  theory  of  a  social  compact, 
that  it  makes  revolution  the  rule  of  political  life,  and  obe- 
dience the  exception.:}:  Not  so.  God  made  man  to  be  happy. 
To  that  end  he  wills  both  the  institution  of  government  and 
the  permanence  of  government ;  and  the  latter  equally  with 
the  former.  Neither  one  man  nor  a  whole  community  of 
men  has  any  the  least  right  herein  to  thwart  his  design. 
But  frequent  revolutions  in  government  would  as  effectually 
defeat  the  benevolent  purpose  of  the  Creator  as  the  want  of 
all  government.  The  stability  of  law  is  quite  as  essential  to 
human  happiness  as  the  existence  of  law.  The  same  light 
of  reason,  therefore,  which  gives  us  to  understand,  that  it  is 
God's  will  that  government  should  be,  tells  us  with  equal 
clearness,  that  it  is  his  will  that  government  should  be  per- 
manent. 

Besides,  the  Deity  himself,  whose  work  is  ever  perfect, 
has  made  provision  against  frequent  revolutions  of  society, 

*  "Religious  Theory  of  Civil  Government,"  p.  23.         f  Commentaries. 
X  Idem,  p.  29. 


INTKODUCTOKY    ESSAY.  71 

in  that  element  of  man's  nature,  which  makes  him  cling  to 
whatever  enjoys  the  sanction  of  age.  The  old  is  always 
venerable  in  the  eyes  of  the  multitude.  Ambitious  leaders, 
and  still  more  those  who  seek  to  become  leaders,  may  plot 
to  overturn  the  established  order  of  things ;  but  the  masses 
are  rarely  moved  to  revolutionary  action,  till  the  pressure  of 
public  wrong  has  become  insupportable.  It  must  be  a  great 
occasion  that  can  induce  a  whole  people  to  unite  in  sub- 
verting their  government ;  especially,  when  it  is  a  govern- 
ment of  their  own  choice,  a  government  instituted  and 
administered  by  themselves. 

The  theory  of  the  social  compact  undoubtedly  throws 
much  light  on  the  nature  and  the  respective  provinces  of 
rebellion  and  revolution.  "While  it  as  strongly  condemns 
the  former,  as  any  other  theory  of  government  can,  it  is  the 
only  theory,  which  asserts  the  right  of  down-trodden  human- 
ity to  resort  for  relief  to  the  latter. 

The  very  end  of  government, — the  preservation,  perfection, 
and  happiness  of  man, — imposes  an  obligation  of  obedience 
to  the  sovereign  authority,  so  long  as  it  acts  with  moderation 
and  equity.  It  is  this  obligation  of  obedience,  founded  in 
the  will  of  God,  because  founded  in  the  nature  and  litness 
of  things,  which  constitutes  the  whole  force  of  civil  society, 
and  consequently  the  entire  felicity  of  the  state.  Whoever, 
therefore,  rises  up  against  the  sovereign  power  to  destroy  it, 
is  guilty  of  the  greatest  crime  that  can  be  committed,  since 
he  seeks  to  subvert  the  foundations  of  the  public  felicity,  in 
which  that  of  every  individual  is  included. 

This  is  rebellion.  But  if  the  supreme  power  degenerate 
into  tyranny,  if  they  who  hold  it  are  manifestly  aiming  to 
destroy  the  liberties  of  the  state,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
social  compact,  that  the  people  have  the  right  to  rise  in 
their  majesty,  and  to  demand  from  their  tyrants  the  surren- 
der of  trusts,  forfeited  by  abuses  of  so  flagrant  a  character. 


72  INTKODUCTOEY    ESSAY. 

Tliis  is  revolution.  It  is  a  remed}',  not  only  justifiable 
when  all  others  fail,  but  demanded  by  the  very  same  reason 
on  which  government  itself  is  founded, — a  regard  to  the 
welfare  and  felicity  of  mankind.  A  strict  observance  ol  i' 
law,  on  the  part  of  rulers  as  well  as  people,  is  essential 
to  the  happiness  of  nations.  To  resist  a  tyrant,  who  knows 
no  law  but  his  own  will,  is  not  rebellion,  but  revolution.  It 
is  not  lawless  violence,  but  lawful  self-defence.  It  is  not  an 
invasion  of  the  prerogative  of  one,  but  a  vindication  of  the 
prerogatives  of  millions.  It  is  not  a  right  merely,  but  a 
duty. 

Finally,  it  is  objected  that,  on  the  principle  of  the  social 
compact,  capital  punishment  is  an  aggression  upon  indi- 
vidual rights,  a  bloody,  popular  revenge.*  This  objection, 
like  the  preceding,  overlooks  the  end  for  which  God  wills 
'the  institution  of  government, — tlie  safety,  peace,  and  hap- 
piness of  his  rational  creation.  In  ordaining  this  end,  he 
must,  of  necessity,  have  ordained  the  means.  The  necessary 
agencies  and  appliances  of  government  are  as  much  an 
ordinance  of  heaven  as  government  itself  is.  As  to  what 
instrumentalities  are  necessary  to  enable  government  to 
answer  the  end  of  its  institution,  right  reason,  whose 
function  it  was,  originally,  to  discover  the  congruity  of  law 
to  the  divine  will,  is  the  sole  judge.  Hence,  the  members 
of  a  civil  state,  who  have  united  together,  on  the  principle 
of  compact,  express  or  implied,  the  more  eifectually  to  carry 
out  the  purpose  of  the  Deity  in  ordaining  government,  are, 
by  the  very  constitution  and  nature  of  things,  clothed  with 
full  power  to  institute  such  rewards  and  punishments  as,  in 
the  enlightened  use  of  their  faculties,  they  may  deem  essen- 
tial to  the  end  in  view.  Nay,  they  not  only  have  the 
power,  but  they  are  under  the  obligation,  of  annexing  to 
their  laws  such  sanctions  as  will  eflectually  restrain  the  bad 

*  Idem,  pp.  32,  33. 

t  See  "  Social  Contract,"  Chaps.  4th  aD(i  5th. 


INTKODTJCTORY   ESSAY.  73 

passions  of  men,  tliongli  these  sanctions  may  include  the 
loss  of  property,  liberty,  and  life  itself.  The  maxim,  "  salus 
fojptili  sujprema  lex^''  is  as  applicable  to  the  punitive,  as  it  is 
to  any  other  department  of  government,  and  as  applicable 
to  a  government  which  embraces,  as  to  one  which  repudi- 
ates, the  principle  of  the  social  compact.  The  use  of  capital 
punishments,  therefore,  is  as  much  within  the  limits  of 
legitimate  authority  in  a  state  formed  on  the  basis  of  com- 
pact, as  in  a  state  established  on  the  opposite  j)rinciple  of 
absolutism. 

Eousseau,  indeed,  assumes,  that,  as  the  waters  of  a  spring 
cannot  rise  above  their  source,  so  the  power  of  the  magis- 
tracy, being  derived  from  the  people,  cannot  rise  higher 
than  the  power  of  the  people  in  their  individual  capacity.* 
From  this  assumption  the  inference  is  drawn  for  him,  (he 
does  not  draw  it  himself,)  that,  as  no  man  has  the  right  to 
commit  suicide,  civil  society  can  have  no  right  to  take  away 
human  life  in  punishment  of  crimes.f     The  principle  relied 

*  See  "  Social  Compact,"  Chaps.  4tli  aud  5th. 

f  Rousseau  expressly  disclaims  this  iufereuce.  He  says  :  "  It  hath  been 
asked,  how  iudividuals,  having  no  right  to  dispose  of  their  own  life,  can 
transmit  that  right  to  the  sovereign  ?  The  difficulty  of  resolving  this  question 
arises  only  from  its  being  badly  expressed.  Every  man  hath  an  undoubted 
right  to  hazard  his  life  for  its  preservation.  Was  a  man  ever  charged  with 
suicide  for  throwing  himself  from  the  top  of  a  house  in  flames,  in  order  to 
avoid  being  burnt  ?  *  *  ♦  *  To  prevent  our  falling  by  the  hands  of  an 
assassin,  we  consent  to  die  on  becoming  such  ourselves.  •  *  *  •  Add  to 
this,  that  every  malefactor,  by  breaking  the  laws  of  his  country,  becomes  a 
rebel  and  a  traitor,  ceasing  from  that  time  to  be  a  member  of  the  community, 
and  even  declaring  war  against  it.  In  this  case,  the  preservation  of  the  state 
is  incompatible  with  his  ;  one  of  the  two  must  perish  ;  aud  thus,  when  a 
criminal  is  executed,  he  doth  not  suffer  in  the  quality  of  a  citizen,  but  in 
that  of  an  enemy.  His  trial  and  sentence  are  the  evidence  and  declaration 
of  his  having  broken  the  social  compact,  and  that,  of  consequence,  he  is  no 
longer  a  member  of  the  state.'  — "  Social  Cont.,"  Chap.  5.  These  are, 
certainly,  false  and  insufficient  grounds  ;  but  they  show,  that  the  author  was 
not  prepared  for  the  consequences  of  his  own  doctrine.     He  was,  beyond  a 


74  EbrrEOUUCTOKT    E6SAY. 

on  to  support  this  conclusion  is,  that  the  master  cannot  con- 
fer upon  the  servant  a  right  which  he  himself  has  not. 
They  who  oppose  the  conventional  origin  of  government, 
hold  the  theory  of  a  social  compact  responsible  for  an 
infidel  sophism  of  one  of  its  advocates.  Eousseau  has  many 
great  truths  and  admirable  reflections  in  his  treatise  on  gov- 
ernment, just  as  the  rationalistic  interpreters  have,  by  their 
deep  learning,  thrown  a  strong  light  on  many  obscure 
places  of  Holy  Writ.  But  I  should  as  soon  think  of  taking 
the  latter  for  my  guides  in  studying  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment, as  the  former  in  framing  a  theory  of  civil  polity, 

I  have  called  the  argument  attributed  to  the  Genevan 
philosopher  a  sophism.  It  is  nothing  more.  It  overlooks 
the  twofold  origin  of  government,  explained  in  a  former 
part  of  this  essay.  It  leaves  wholly  out  of  view  the  divine 
element  of  law,  which  the  social  compact  admits  as  readily 
as  any  other  theory  of  government.  In  this  connexion,  I 
cannot  but  refer  again  to  the  distinction,  so  plain  and  solid 
in  itself,  and  so  well  stated  by  Bishop  Sanderson  and  Arch- 
bishop Bramhall.  Says  the  former  of  these  prelates :  "  The 
substance  of  the  power  of  every  magistrate  is  the  ordinance 
of  God ;  but  the  specification  of  the  circumstances  thereto 
relating  is  a  human  ordinance,  introduced  by  custom  or 
positive  law."*  Says  the  latter  :  "  That  all  lawful  dominion, 
considered  in  the  abstract,  is  from  God,  no  man  can  make 
any  doubt.  But  the  right  and  application  of  this  power  and 
interest,  in  the  concrete,  to  this  or  that  particular  man,  is 
many  times  from  the  grant  and  consent  of  the  people.  So 
God  is  the  principal  agent ;  man,  the  instrumental,  God  is 
the  fountain,  the  root  of  power  ;  man,  the  stream,  the  bough, 

doubt,  an  euemy  to  capital  punishment,  except,  perhaps,  in  the  most 
extreme  cases ;  for  he  adds  in  the  same  chapter  :  "  There  is  no  malefactor, 
who  might  not  be  made  good  for  something,  nor  ought  any  person  to  be  put 
to  death,  even  by  way  of  example,  unless  such  aa  could  not  be  preserved 
without  endangering  the  community." 
•  "  Sermon  ad  Magistros." 


INTRODUCTOKY   ESSAY.  75 

by  wliicli  it  is  derived.  The  essence  of  power  is  always 
from  God ;  the  existence,  sometimes  from  God,  sometimes 
fromman."* 

The  sum  is  :  God  ordains  government  to  secure  the  rights 
of  man, — "  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  He 
equally  ordains  the  means  necessary  and  fit  to  attain  that 
end.  He  does  not  designate  the  means.  He  could  not  do 
so,  for  the  plain  reason,  that  the  means  will  vary  in  difier- 
ent  ages,  climates,  and  states  of  society.  He  leaves  it  to 
men,  whom  he  has  endowed  with  reason  for  this,  among 
other  purposes,  to  choose  such  means  as  to  their  wisdom  may 
seem  suitable  and  sufiicient.  It  is  the  will  of  God,  that  the 
rights  of  property  shall  be  guarded  ;  but  whether  this  shall 
be  effected  by  blows,  restitution,  imprisonment,  servitude, 
or  even  death,  is  left  to  the  calm  and  conscientious  judg- 
ment of  men.  It  is  the  will  of  God,  that  human  life  should 
be  secure  ;  but  in  what  manner  this  security  shall  be  at- 
tained, whether  by  exile,  perpetual  confinement,  deprivation 
of  life,  or  other  penalties,  inflicted  on  those  who  invade  it, 
man's  wisdom  is  the  sole  judge.  Neither  forms  of  govern- 
ment, nor  theories  of  government,  make  any  difference. 
The  magistrate,  whether  he  be  an  hereditary  prince  of  the 
thousandth  generation,  or  the  elected  chief  of  a  community, 
whose  members  but  yesterday  formed  themselves  into  a  civil 
state  by  voluntary  compact,  is  the  minister  and  vicegerent 
of  God  ;  and  his  sword  of  power  is  bathed  in  heaven. f 

From  this  inquiry  into  the  true  theory  of  civil  society, 
there  result  certain  general  principles  of  government  and 
law,  which  I  propose,  briefly,  to  unfold.  Perhaps  I  should 
express  my  meaning  better,  if  I  were  to  say,  that  these 
principles  are  embodied  in  the  foregoing  discussion,  and 
that  I  desire  to  group  them  together,  and  present  them,  in  a 
summary  way,  to  the  reader's  view 

*  Works,  vol.  3,  p.  317. 
t  Isaiah  xxxiv.    5 


76  mTRODUCTOKY    ESSAY. 

1.  Human  society  is,  originally  and  in  itself,  a  state  of 
equality,  freedom,  and  independence.*  In  this  primitive 
state,  which  we  can  conceive  of  as  an  object  of  thought, 
even  though  we  reject  it  as  an  actuality,  no  man  has  an 
original  and  inherent  right  of  command  over  his  fellows. 
1^0  man  possesses  any  title  to  sovereignty.  Men  are  free 
and  equal ;  and  each  is  as  independent  of  the  others,  as  they 
all  are  dependent  on  God. 

2.  The  institution  of  civil  society,  by  establishing  a  sov- 
ereign power  having  the  right  of  command,  abridges  this 
liberty,  equality,  and  independence.f  The  change,  how- 
ever, does  not  subvert  natural  society,  but  rather  perfects  it. 
Civil  society  is  natural  society,  so  modified  as  to  have  a 
recognized  head  and  established  rules  of  intercourse.  Civil 
liberty  replaces  natural  liberty.  By  this  means,  mankind 
more  certainly  attain,  and  more  securely  hold,  that  happiness, 
which  was  the  final  cause  of  their  creation, — in  subordina- 
tion always  to  the  divine  glory. 

3.  States,  when  formed,  having  each  a  common  will,  as 
well  as  a  common  interest,  acquire  certain  personal  attri- 
butes. They  become,  in  effect,  moral  persons ;  and  are  to 
be  looked  upon  as  such.  Hence  arise  new  relations  among 
men,  viz. :  the  relations  which  exist  between  the  several 
civil  societies,  into  which  they  have  formed  themselves. 
States  have  with  respect  to  each  other  the  same  rights  and 
obligations  as  real  persons.  Their  intercourse  is  to  be  regu- 
lated by  the  same  ethical  principles  as  the  intercourse  of 
real  persons.  That  great  moral  maxim,  whose  transcendent 
beauty  and  importance  have  given  it  the  appellation  of  the 
golden  rule,:}:  is  as  applicable  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

4.  The  question  of  the  form  of  government  has  much  en- 
gaged men's  thoughts  and  pens.  The  highest  efforts  of  genius 
have  been  expended  on  the  study  and  elucidation  of  it. 

*  "  Burlam.  Pol  Law,"  Part  1,  chap  3. 

t  Ibidem.  %  ^att.  1,  12. 


mTKODUCTOKT    ESSAY.  77 

There  are  commonly  reckoned  three  simple  foi-ms : — mon- 
archy, or  the  government  of  one  ;  aristocracy,  or  the  govern- 
ment of  the  worthiest ;  and  democracy,  or  the  government 
of  the  people.  But  these  three  simple  forms  are  capable  of 
indefinite  combination  Avith  each  other;  and  thence  have 
resulted  that  endless  diversity  of  polities,  which  have  existed 
in  the  world. 

A  two-fold  inquiry  has  arisen  in  regard  to  political  organ- 
izations, viz. :  1.  What  is  the  most  legitimate  form  ?  2. 
What  is  the  best  form?  From  principles  established  in  this 
essay  it  results,  that  all  forms,  founded  on  popular  consent, 
and  tending  to  promote  the  general  happiness,  arc  equally 
legitimate.  The  best  form  is  another  question.  Liberty, 
the  source  of  the  most  precious  blessings,  has  two  enemies 
in  civil  society, — licentiousness  and  tyranny.*  To  guard 
against  these  enemies  is  the  height  of  both  human  prudence 
and  human  felicity.  To  efiect  this,  a  polity  must  be  so  con- 
stituted as  to  banish  the  one,  without  introducing  the  other. 
Such  a  temperament,  excluding  alike  lawlessness  and  op- 
pression, is  the  perfection  of  a  civil  constitution.  But  it  is  a 
temperament  w^hich  neither  a  pure  despotism  nor  a  pure 
democracy  affords.  The  former  is  too  violent,  and  tends  to 
tyranny ;  the  latter  is  too  weak,  and  tends  to  anarchy.  It 
follows,  that  that  form  of  polity  is  best,  in  which  the  prin- 
ciple of  monarchy  and  the  principle  of  democracy  are  so 
blended  as  to  banish  both  these  foes  to  true  freedom.  Such 
a  combination  secures  that  happy  balance  in  the  state,  which 
is  most  essential  to  the  stability  of  the  government  and  the 
welfare  of  the  people. 

5.  A  spirit  of  moderation  is  the  spirit  which  should  cha- 
racterize both  legislators  and  legislation. f  And  the  broader 
the  territories  of  a  state  are,  and  consequently  the  greater 
the  diversity  of  its  interests,  the  more  need  there  is  that  mo- 

*  "  Burlam,  Pol.  Law,"  Pt.  2,  chap.  2. 
t  "  Montesq.  Sp.  Laws,"  Bk.  29,  chap.  1. 


78  INTKODUCTOKT   ESSAY. 

derate  conncils  should  prevail.  Political  good  commonlj 
lies  between  two  extremes.  This  is,  preeminently,  the  case 
in  our  country.  A  spirit  of  compromise,  of  generosity, 
of  candor,  of  nobleness,  of  brotherhood,  of  mutual  deference 
and  concession,  is  the  proper  spirit  of  the  American  Ke- 
public.  It  was  in  this  spirit  that  our  constitution  and  our 
union  were  formed  ;  and  in  this  spirit  alone  can  that  consti- 
tution and  that  union,  which  are  the  spring  of  all  our  enjoy- 
ments, be  maintained  and  made  perpetual. 

6.  Government  should  be  characterized  by  a  spirit  of 
equity  as  well  as  of  moderation.  The  laws  ought  to  be  equal 
in  their  operation.  Justice  requires  that  there  should  be 
neither  partial  exemptions  nor  partial  burdens.  Taxation 
should  bear  with  equal  weight  on  all.  Tlie  path  to  public 
trust  and  honor  should  be  open  to  all.  The  same  legal  pro- 
cess should  impend  over  all  for  a  violation  of  the  laws.  Law 
should  be  the  buckler  of  the  peasant,  as  well  as  the  defence 
of  the  noble  ;  the  inheritance  of  the  poor,  as  w^ell  as  the 
patrimony  of  the  rich ;  the  staif  of  honesty,  and  the  shield 
of  innocence ;  not  the  two-edged  sw^ord  of  craft  and  oppres- 
sion.* These  ideas  have  gone  into  the  universal  mind  of 
America.f  They  are  the  vital  element,  the  soul,  of  our  poli- 
tical system.  They  are  to  us,  in  civil  science,  what  the 
axioms  of  Euclid  are  to  geometry— truths  which  no  one 
questions ;  the  basis  of  our  more  recondite  political  theorems ; 
the  starting  point  of  higher  investigations. 

Not  so,  however,  in  most  other  countries.  Tlie  laws  of  all 
despotic  states,  and  even  of  England,  afford  many  examples 
of  the  violation  of  the  great  principle,  that  both  the  burdens 
and  the  privileges  of  the  state  should  be  equal  to  alLJ  It 
is  the  policy  of  the  aristocracy,  in  the  European  monarchies, 

*  Lord  Brougham's  Rep.  on  L.  Ref.  to  the  Br.  Pari, 
t  Park  Godwin's  "  Review  of  the  Last  Half  Cent."  in  N.  Y.  Ev.  Post. 
X  See  an  able  Paper  on  this  subject,  appended  to  Mr.  Combes'  "  Travels 
in  the  United  States." 


INTEODUCTGRY   ESSAY.  Y9 

to  preserve  great  estates,  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  great 
power  and  influence  wliich  attend  tliem,  in  tlie  same  family. 
Hence  tlie  great  inequality  and  tlie  great  injustice  of  the 
laws  in  those  proud  monarchies.  The  process  of  law  which 
would  enter  a  poor  man's  hovel,  and  drive  him  out  of  it, 
falls  dead  at  the  gate  of  a  nobleman's  palace.  But  this 
iniquity  cannot  stand  for  ever.  The  towering  structure  of 
aristocratic  pride  and  power  must  give  way,  and  the  nobler 
and  fairer  edifice  of  truth  and  justice  will  rise  majestically 
upon  its  ruins. 

T.  Tlie  administration  of  justice  ought  to  be  impartial, 
speedy,  uniform,  economical,  free  from  perplexing  techni- 
calities, according  to  established  forms  of  procedure,  and  as 
near  to  every  man's  door  as  circumstances  will  permit.  All 
should  have  it,  without  going  far  to  seek  it,  without  waiting 
long  to  obtain  it,  and  without  paying  an  exorbitant  price 
for  it. 

8.  Tlie  well-being  of  the  entire  body  of  the  people  is  the 
central  doctrine,  the  one  paramount  law  of  political  philo- 
soph}^.  "  Salus  populi  suprema  lex."  To  this  great  end, 
this  predominant  idea,  should  all  the  laws  be  relative.  The 
fundamental  principle  of  law  is  benevolence.* 

9.  The  style  in  which  the  laws  are  written  is  not  beneath 
the  attention  of  legislators.  It  should  be  concise,  simple, 
clear,  and  explicit.f  It  should  excite  in  every  mind  the 
same  ideas ;  and  this  because  the  object  is  to  establish 
justice  and  teach  duties — not  to  furnish  specimens  of  rhetoric. 
The  Koman  laws  of  the  twelve  tables  were  models  of  con- 
ciseness.:}: The  boys  in  school  were  required  to  commit 
them  to  memory.  The  Mosaic  legislation  is  marked  by  a 
like  brevity.  It  consists  of  a  "  series  of  laconic  regulations, 
directly  opposite  in  form  to  the  endless  iterations  and  syno- 

*  Spring's  "  Obi.  of  the  World  to  the  Bible,"  Lect.  3. 

t  Monies.  "  Sp.  Laws,"  Bk.  29,  Chap.  16.  t  Iljidcm. 


80  INTEODUCTOKY   ESSAY. 

nymie'3  of  modern  statute  books."*  Tlie  early  laws  of  ISTe-w 
England  were  clothed  in  a  diction,  curt,  bold,  clear,  and 
straiglitfoi*ward — a  reflection  of  the  men  who  made  them. 

Tlie  composition  of  laws  should  be  exact,  as  well  as  brief. 
Montesquieu  instances  a  law  of  the  emperor  Honorius  as 
wanting  in  this  quality.f  The  imperial  edict  makes  it 
death  to  "molest"  a  freedman.  Now,  the  "molestation" 
felt  by  a  person,  in  a  given  case,  depends  upon  his  sensibil- 
ity. Thus  it  would  happen,  that  an  act  done  to  A,  would 
be  quite  innocent,  which,  when  done  to  B,  would  be  a  cap- 
ital crime.  A  rescript  of  Cardinal  Eichelieu  is  open  to  the 
same  objection. :{:  The  Cardinal  agreed,  that  a  minister 
might  be  accused  to  the  king.  But  the  accusation  must  be 
respecting  a  "matter  of  moment,"  otherwise  the  accuser 
was  to  be  punished.  Now,  a  "  matter  of  moment"  is  alto- 
gether relative  ;  the  phrase  has  no  intrinsic  meaning.  The 
permission,  therefore,  was,  in  effect,  a  prohibition  against 
uttering  any  truth  against  the  ministers  of  the  crown.  That 
it  should  have  this  operation,  was,  probably,  the  design  of 
the  wily  politician. 

10.  Law^s  ought  to  arise  out  of  circumstances  and  be 
relative  to  certain  definite  ends.§  By  overlooking  this  prin- 
ciple, the  Eomans  not  only  committed  a  ridiculous  blunder, 
but  subverted  justice  in  one  of  the  laws  of  the  twelve 
tables.  This  law  ordained,  that,  if  a  thief  was  caught  with 
the  stolen  article  before  he  had  conveyed  it  to  a  hiding 
place,  he  should  be  scourged  with  rods  and  condemned  to 
slavery ;  but  that,  if  he  was  not  detected  till  some  time 
afterwards,  he  should  only  be  condemned  to  a  recompence  of 
double  the  value  of  what  he  had  stolen.  Kow,  the  time  of 
detection  could  not  possibly  alter  the  nature  of  the  crime. 
Neither  would  the  Roman  jurisprudence  ever  have  made  so 

*  "  Princeton  Bib.  Rep."  for  Jan.  1848,     Art.  The  Mos.  Leg 
t  "  Sp.  Laws,"  Book  29,  Chap.  16.  J  Ibidem 

I  Ibidem,  Book  29,  Chaps.  13, 14. 


rNTRODUCTOEY    ESSAY.  81 

unmeaning  a  distinction,  if  it  had  not  borrowed  the  law 
from  the  Spartan  legislation.  In  the  code  to  which  it 
originally  belonged,  whatever  we  may  think  of  its  morality, 
the  policy  of  it  was  unquestionable.  Lycurgus  wished  to 
make  the  Spartans  cunning  and  dexterous.  To  this  end  he 
ordained,  tliat  children  should  be  practised  in  thieving.  If 
caught  in  the  act,  they  were  punislied  ;  if  they  had  the  art 
to  avoid  detection,  they  were  applauded.  The  punishment 
was  not  for  the  theft,  but  for  the  want  of  adroitness  in  con- 
cealing it.  No  such  end  being  proposed  by  the  Roman 
legislators,  tlie  law  was,  in  their  jurisprudence,  a  simple 
burlesque  upon  justice. 

The  principle  now  under  consideration  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  in  interpreting  the  legislation  of  antiquity. 
The  more  the  manners  and  circumstances  of  the  people  differ 
from  our  own,  which  will  generally  be  in  proportion  to 
their  remoteness  from  us  in  time  and  space,  the  more  will  it 
be  necessary  to  keep  this  principle  in  view,  in  the  study  of 
their  institutions  and  laws.  If,  besides  this,  a  civil  polity 
propose  the  accomplishment  of  certain  great  purposes  pecu- 
liar to  itself,  the  principle  rises  to  a  transcendent  importance 
as  a  guide  in  the  interpretation  of  the  laws,  which  are 
relative  to  those  special  ends.* 

11.  Laws,  and  not  men,  are  the  rulers,  in  every  justly 
constituted  state.  The  difference  is  broad  and  impassable 
between  a  government  of  will  and  a  government  of  law. 
Where  the  leading  principle  of  a  polity  is,  "  stat  pro  ratione 
voluntas,"  it  is  of  little  moment  what  name  it  bears,  or 
under  what  forms  it  exists  and  acts.  Hence  such  an  un- 
limited democracy  as  that  of  Athens,  in  which  the  people 
ostracised  illustrious  citizens  for  acts  which  they  had  never 
before  declared  illegal,  was  as  absolute  a  despotism  as  that 
of  Nero.     In   practice,  it  always  proved  itself  as  bloody, 

♦  This  last  remark  has  an  important  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of  the 
Hebrew  legislation,  as  will  more  fully  appear  as  we  proceed  in  our  inquiries. 


82  DfTKODUCTOET    ESSAY. 

cruel,  and  tyrannical.  In  full  accordance  with  this  view  is 
the  principle  before  cited  from  Bracton,  as  an  element,  or 
doctrine,  of  the  British  Constitution,  viz. :  that  "  the  law 
maketh  the  king;"  and  the  further  principle,  which  the 
same  eminent  jurist  derives  as  an  inference  from  the  pre- 
ceding one,  viz, :  that  "  he  is  not  truly  king,  where  will 
and  pleasure  rules,  and  not  the  law."* 

Tyranny  is  quite  as  likely  to  exist  under  an  unrestrained 
democracy,  as  under  an  unrestrained  despotism.  Liberty, 
true  liberty,  is  encompassed  with  dangers,  and  that  from 
within,  as  well  as  from  without.  Its  greatest  peril  is  that  of 
running  into  licentiousness,  just  as  liberality  is  apt  to  degen- 
erate into  extravagance.  Licentiousness  is  an  excess  of 
liberty,  and  tends  to  its  destruction.  "  A  particular  man 
may  be  licentious,  without  being  less  free,  but  a  community 
cannot;  since  the  licentiousness  of  one  will  unavoidably 
break  in  upon  the  liberty  of  another.  Civil  liberty,  the 
liberty  of  a  community,  is  a  severe  and  restrained  thing; 
implies,  in  the  notion  of  it,  authority,  settled  subordinations, 
subjection,  and  obedience  ;  and  is  altogether  as  much  hurt 
by  too  little  of  this  kind,  as  by  too  much  of  it.  And  the 
love  of  liberty,  when  it  is  indeed  the  love  of  liberty,  which 
carries  us  to  withstand  tyranny,  will  as  much  carry  us  to 
reverence  authority  and  support  it ;  for  this  most  obvious 
reason,  that  the  one  is  as  necessary  to  the  very  being  of 
liberty,  as  the  other  is  destructive  of  it.  And,  therefore,  the 
love  of  liberty,  which  does  not  produce  this  effect,  the 
love  of  liberty,  which  is  not  a  real  principle  of  diitiful  beha- 
vior towards  authority,  is  as  hypocritical  as  the  religion, 
which  is  not  productive  of  a  good  life.  Licentiousness  is,  in 
truth,  such  an  excess  of  liberty,  as  is  of  the  same  nature 
with  tyranny.  For  what  is  the  difference  between  them, 
but  that  one  is  lawless  power,  exercised  under  pretence  of 

*  Bracton'3  "Treatise  on  the  Laws  and  Customs  of  England"  cited  by 
Blackstone. 


INTKODUCTOKT   ESSAY.  83 

authority,  or  zj  persons  invested  with  it;  the  other,  lawless 
power,  exercised  under  the  pretence  of  liberty,  or  without 
any  pretence  at  all.  A  people,  then,  must  be  always  less 
free,  in  proportion  as  they  are  more  licentious ;  licentious- 
ness being  not  only  dijfferent  from  liberty,  but  contrary  to 
it,  a  direct  breach  upon  it."*  "  Government,  as  distinguished 
from  mere  power,  free  government,  necessarily  implies  rever- 
ence, in  the  subjects  of  it,  for  authority  or  power  regulated 
by  laws,  and  a  habit  of  submission  to  the  subordinations  in 
civil  life,  throughout  its  several  ranks ;  nor  is  a  people 
capable  of  liberty,  without  something  of  this  kind.  But,  it 
must  be  observed,  this  reverence  and  submission  will  at  best 
be  very  precarious,  if  it  be  not  founded  upon  a  sense  of  au- 
thority being  God's  ordinance,  and  the  subordinations  of 
life,  a  providential  appointment  of  things."f 

12.  Magistrates  ought  to  consider,  and  ever  to  bear  in 
mind,  that  they  are  God's  representatives  and  vicegerents. 
The  tendency  of  this  consideration  will  be  to  make  them 
circumspect,  just,  diligent,  and  merciful,  in  the  exercise  of 
their  magisterial  function.  Their  power  is  a  trust  from 
heaven,  as  well  as  from  earth  ;  a  high,  holy,  fearful  trust. 
They  are  God's  ministers,  not  man's  masters ;  his  ministers 
for  the  good,  not  the  oppression,  of  the  governed.  Tlie  trial 
of  their  fidelity  at  the  bar  of  their  constituents  is  sometimes 
dreadful ;  the  account  to  be  rendered  at  the  tribunal  of  the 
supreme  judge,  from  whom  even  more  than  from  men  their 
authority  comes,  will  be  far  more  so.  "  If  they  are  faithful, 
heaven  has  nothing  that  he  will  not  lavish  on  them  through 
eternity.  If  they  are  faithless,  there  is  no  pit  in  hell  too 
deep  and  dark  for  their  eternal  exile  from  all  peace,  ail  rest. 
all  joy.  Forever  mindful,  then,  should  they  be  of  frheir  sacred 
trust.  Forever  mindful,  that  they  hold  it  for  God's  children 
upon  earth.     Forever  mindful,  that  they  hold  it  under  most 

*  "  Bishop  Butler's  Sermon  in  the  House  of  Lords.' 
t  Idem. 


?4  mTEODUCTOKT   ESSAY. 

severe  accountability  to  him.  Tliey  are  to  govern  by  the 
law.  They  are  to  seek  no  good  but  the/rs  who  are  entrusted 
to  their  care  ;  no  other  glory  than  his,  who  put  them  thus 
in  trust."* 

What  can  more  animate  an  upright  and  conscientious 
magistrate  to  do  his  duty,  than  the  consideration,  that  he  is 
delegated  of  God  to  the  work  of  the  magistracy,  and  that  he 
must  one  day  appear  before  him  to  give  an  account  of  his 
administration  ?  To  this  principle  do  the  sacred  writers  con- 
stantly appeal,  for  the  purpose  of  engaging  magistrai^es  to 
fidelity  in  the  execution  of  their  trust.  "  Judge  righteously," 
says  Moses,  "  between  every  man  and  his  brother,  and  the 
stranger  that  is  with  thee ;  for  the  judgment  is  God's."f 
"  Take  heed,"  says  Jehoshaphat, "  what  ye  do  ;  for  ye  judge 
not  for  man,  but  for  the  Lord,  who  is  with  you  in  the  judg- 
ment. Wherefore  now  let  the  fear  of  the  Lord  be  upon  you : 
take  heed  and  do  it :  for  there  is  no  iniquity  with  the  Lord 
our  God.":}:  "  God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of  the 
mighty,"  says  the  psalmist ;  "  he  judgeth  among  the  gods 
[magistrates.]  How  long  will  ye  judge  unjustly,  and 
accept  the  persons  of  the  wicked  ?"§  The  motives  here 
urged  to  a  faithful  discharge  of  official  duty  on  the  part  of 
magistrates,  to  the  exercise  of  prudence,  moderation,  justice, 
clemency,  and  diligence  in  their  public  relations,  are,  that 
their  seat  is  the  throne  of  God  ;  that  their  decisions  are  the 
utterances  of  the  divinity ;  that  their  decrees  are  the  edicts 
of  heaven  ;  that,  in  short,  they  are  ministers  of  the  divine 
equity  and  goodness,  and,  "  if  they  fail  in  their  duty,  they 
not  only  injure  men  by  criminally  distressing  them,  but  they 
even  offend  God  by  polluting  his  sacred  judgments." [ 

13.  Tlie  duties  of  citizens  to  their  rulers  are  honor  and 
obedience.!"    They  are  to  look  upon  their  office  as  a  dele- 

*  "  Bishop  Doane's  Orat.,  entitled,  Civ.  Gov.  a  Sac.  Trust  from  God." 

t  Deut.  i.  16,  17.  t  2  Chron.  xix.  6.  7. 

g  Psalm  Ixxxii.  1,  2.  [I  Calv.  Inst.  Oh.  Eel.  B.  4,  C.  20. 

f  Fuller's  Works,  V.  3,  pp.  670,  seqq. 


INTKODUCTOKY    ESSAY.  85 

gation  frort  God,  and  upon  themselves  as  God's  ministers. 
On  this  account  they  are  to  esteem  and  reverence  both 
their  function  and  their  persons.  As  they  are  to  feel  an 
attachment  to  government  as  government,  irrespective  of 
the  men  who  administer  it ;  so  they  are  to  feel  an  attach- 
ment to  magistrates  as  magistrates,  irrespective  of  the  party 
to  which  they  belong.  If  I  honor  the  ruler  of  my  people, 
because  he  belongs  to  my  party,  and  not  because  Christ 
enjoins  it,  I  may  be  a  good  partisan,  but  I  am  not  a  good 
Christian.  Without  honor,  reverence,  esteem,  attachment, 
there  can  be  no  true  obedience.  Constrained  obedience 
is  no  obedience.  I  deliver  up  my  purse  to  a  robber  at 
his  command;  but  there  is  not  one  grain  of  honor  or 
obedience  in  the  act ;  there  is  a  simple  yielding  to  a 
power  which  I  cannot  resist.  To  call  such  an  act  obedience 
would  be  as  great  an  abuse  of  language,  as  to  speak  of  obe- 
dience to  a  falling  tree  or  stone,  in  reference  to  the  motion 
by  which  I  avoided  being  crushed  by  their  momentum. 
There  is  an  element  in  obedience,  over  and  above  mere  out- 
ward compliance,  whether  as  due  to  parents,  masters,  or 
magistrates.  Moreover,  the  obedience  rendered  to  magis- 
trates must  be  rendered  as  due  to  God,  whose  represent- 
atives and  delegates  they  are.  He  who  resists  the  magis- 
trate, resists  God.  Let  him  who  adventures  such  an  act, 
tremble  at  his  own  rash  daring.  An  unarmed  minister  ot 
the  law  may  seem  a  despicable  thing.  But  an  affront  offered 
to  him,  in  his  ministerial  capacity,  is  an  affront  offered  to 
God  himself,  who  is  armed  with  the  terrors  of  omnipotence.* 
Korah  and  his  company  thought  little  of  the  power  of 
Moses;  but  they  found  whom  they  had  offended  in  despis- 
ing him,  when  the  rent  earth  closed  over  their  miserable 
remains,  engulfing  them  within  its  dark  and  frightful 
caverns. 

14,  Finally :    Civil  government  is  man's  best  friend  and 

«  Calv.  Inst.  Ch.  Rel.  B.  4,  C.  20. 


86  INTRODUCTOKT    ESSA\. 

benefactor.  "  It  is  equally  as  necessary  to  mankind,"  says 
Calvin,  "  as  bread  and  water,  light  and  air,  and  far  more 
excellent.  For  it  not  only  tends  to  secure  the  accommo- 
dations arising  from  all  these  things,  that  men  may  breathe, 
eat,  drink,  and  be  sustained  in  life,  *  *  *  ^;  its  objects 
also  are,  that  idolatry,  sacrileges  against  the  name  of  God, 
blasphemies  against  his  truth,  and  other  offences  against 
religion,  may  not  openly  appear  and  be  disseminated 
among  the  people ;  that  the  public  tranquillity  may  not  be 
disturbed;  that  every  person  may  enjoy  his  property  with- 
out molestation  ;  that  men  may  transact  their  business 
together  without  fraud  or  injustice;  that  integrity  and 
modesty  may  be  cultivated  among  them  ;  in  short,  that  there 
may  be  a  public  form  of  religion  among  Christians,  and 
that  humanity  may  be  maintained  among  men."* 

Wise  laws  and  a  due  administration  of  them  are  essential 
to  the  peace,  order,  and  safety  of  every  community.  Law  is 
at  once  the  measure  and  the  defender  of  right.  It  prescribes 
to  every  man  a  course  of  conduct  which  entitles  him  to  the 
protection  of  society.  It  is,  indeed,  a  master ;  but  a  master 
that  is  itself  under  the  government  of  reason  and  benevo- 
lence. Its  commands  are  founded  on  the  welfare  of  those  to 
whom  they  are  addressed.  But  it  is  also  a  guardian,  as  well 
as  a  master.  "  Life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness,"! 
are  under  its  protecting  care.  It  keeps  watch  and  ward, 
by  night  and  by  day,  over  our  persons,  our  property,  our 
reputation,  our  morals,  our  entire  well-being.  Were  its  pro- 
tection withdrawn,  no  man  would  remain  for  a  day  in  his 
present  possessions,  no  man  would  be  secure  for  an  hour 
against  personal  violence.  Strength  would  take  the  place 
of  right.  Lands,  tenements,  goods,  moneys,  property  of 
every  name  and  kind,  would  lay  open  to  a  thousand  inva- 
ders.    The  hand  of  every  man  would  be  against  that  of 

*  Calv.  Inst.  Ch.  Eel.  B.  4,  C.  20.  ■ 

t  Const.  United  States. 


INTRODUCTOR\    ESSAY  87 

every  other.  The  fountains  of  the  great  deep,  in  the  moral 
world,  would  be  broken  up.  All  things  would  rush  to  con- 
fusion and  ruin ;  and  the  world  itself  would  soon  become 
one  vast  aceldama — a  field  of  blood.  Of  law,  then,  to  bor- 
row the  sublime  personification  of  Hooker — "  Of  law  there 
can  no  less  be  acknowledged,  than  that  her  seat  is  the 
bosom  of  God,  her  voice  the  harmony  of  the  world.  All 
things  in  heaven  and  earth  do  her  homage ;  the  very  least 
as  feeling  her  care,  the  greatest  as  not  exempt  from  her 
power.  Both  angels  and  men,  and  creatures  of  what  condi- 
tion soever,  though  each  in  a  diflferent  sort  and  name,  yet 
all,  with  one  uniform  consent,  admire  her  as  the  mother  of 
their  peace  and  joy."* 

Here  ends  the  inquiry  into  the  origin  and  nature  of  civil 
society,  and  into  the  sources,  sanctions,  and  boundaries  of 
political  government.  Let  us  now  briefly  retrace  our  steps, 
survey  the  ground  over  which  we  have  travelled,  and  gather 
up  and  present,  in  one  comprehensive  view,  the  results  of 
this  discussion.  If  I  have  not  missed  my  aim,  the  following 
leading  positions,  among  others  of  less  prominence,  have 
been  established  in  the  course  of  these  inquiries. 

Civil  government  is  a  divine  institution.  In  favor  of  this 
view  we  have  the  concurrent  testimony  of  reason,  revelation, 
and  the  wisest  human  authority.  The  testimony  of  reason 
we  have  in  the  original  aptitude  of  our  nature  for  govern- 
ment ;  in  the  possession  by  man  of  conscience,  benevolence, 
desire  of  esteem,  and  love  of  society,  qualities  clearly  suited 
to  promote  the  good  of  civil  communities,  and  therefore  a 
plain  indication  that  it  is  the  Creator's  will  that  such  com- 
munities should  exist ;  in  the  admirable  order  and  harmony 
of  the  material  universe,  evincing,  analogically,  that  it  is 
not  the  design  of  the  Deity  to  abandon  the  moral  world  to 
chance  and  confusion ;  in  the  fact  that,  were  such  indeed 

*  Eccl.  Pol.  B   i. 


88'  INTRODUCTORY    ESSAY. 

the  divine  purpose,  our  liigliest  faculties- 
prudence,  conscience,  the  power  of  suspending  our  judg- 
ment, and  liberty  of  choice — would  be  in  vain,  and  caprice 
and  passion  would  become  the  governors  of  human  conduct; 
in  the  undoubted  truth,  that  God's  end  in  creating  man — 
the  perfection  of  his  nature  and  the  happiness  of  his  being 
— would  be  defeated  by  the  non-existence  of  civil  govern- 
ment and  law ;  in  tlie  actual  condition  and  history  of  civil 
society,  which  is  such  as  to  lead  the  mind  directly  to  the 
contemplation  of  God  as  its  author;  and  in  the  actual 
benefits  flowing,  as  it  were,  in  a  full  and  perpetual  stream, 
from  civil  polity  and  law.  The  testimony  of  revelation  we 
have  in  numerous  explicit  passages,  affirming,  or  implying, 
the  divinity  of  government ;  particularly,  Ps.  Ixxxii.  1 ; 
Prov.  viii.  15,  16  ;  Kom.  xiii.  1-6  ;  Tit.  iii.  1 ;  1  Pet.  ii.  13,  14  ; 
and  many  others.  The  testimony  of  wise  and  good  men  we 
liave  in  the  recorded  opinions  of  such  writers  as  Calvin, 
Archbishop  Bramhall,  Bishops  Butler  and  Sanderson, 
Burke,  Plato,  Aristotle,  Cicero,  Grotius,  Puffendorf,  Mon- 
tesquieu, Blackstone,  and  a  host  of  others,  dead  and  living, 
of  scarcely  inferior  note. 

But  as  government  is  a  truly  divine,  so  is  it,  also,  a  truly 
human  institution.  It  has  a  twofold  origin — one  in  the  will 
and  purpose  of  the  Deity,  the  other  in  the  act  and  choice  of 
men.  The  divine  will  is  its  remote  source  and  ultimate 
basis ;  human  covenants  its  direct  spring  and  immediate 
foundation.  This  view  harmonizes  two  passages  of  holy 
writ,  which  appear  to  be  in  contradiction  to  each  other — one 
of  which,  in  explicit  terms,  affirms  government  to  be  an 
"ordinance  of  God  ;"  the  other,  in  language  equally  distinct, 
affirms  it  to  be  an  "  ordinance  of  man." 

Hence,  it  is  proper  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  civil 
government,  as  a  thing  of  human  contrivance  and  design. 
A  distinction  is  to  be  made  between  natural  society  and 
civil  society.     Nat  iral  society  is  a  state  wherein  all  are  on  a 


INTRODUCTOKY   ESSAY.  89 

footing  of  equality,  freedom  and  independence.  If  this  state 
has  never,  in  point  of  fact,  existed  among  men,  still  it  may- 
be conceived  of  in  the  mind,  as  an  object  of  philosophical 
speculation.  Civil  society,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  union 
of  a  multitude  of  people,  who  agree,  whether  expressly  or 
tacitly  it  matters  not,  to  live  in  subjection  to  government, 
for  certain  great  and  beneficial  purposes,  not  otherwise 
attainable. 

The  basis  of  this  subjection  to  government  is  a  social 
compact,  "by  which  the  whole  people  covenants  with  each 
citizen,  and  each  citizen  with  the  whole  people,  that  all  shall 
be  governed  by  certain  laws  for  the  common  good."*  The 
substantial  elements  of  the  social  compact  may  be  distinctly 
traced  in  the  Hebrew,  Koraan,  Venetian,  Carthagenian,  and 
English  constitutions.  Tliey  may  be  traced  in  the  monar- 
chies of  continental  Europe,  which  arose  on  the  ruins  of  the 
feudal  system.  But  the  principle  of  the  social  compact  has 
received  its  largest  development,  and  been  permitted  to 
work  out  its  results  with  the  greatest  freedom  in  the  new 
world.  This  theory  forms  the  basis  of  the  civil  polity 
established  by  every  State  in  the  American  Union,  and  is 
fully  embodied  in  the  constitution  of  the  general  govern- 
ment. And  it  is  the  great  and  vivifying  truth  of  popular 
sovereignty,  embodied  in  the  doctrine  of  the  social  compact, 
which  has  produced  the  European  revolutions  of  our  day, 
and  brought  about  the  general  substitution  of  constitutional 
monarchies  for  the  iron  despotisms  of  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries. 

Yarious  objections  have  been  urged  against  the  theory  of 
a  social  compact — such  as  that  it  is  anti-christian  and  nega- 
tively atheistic ;  that  it  is  destructive  of  the  idea  of  an 
organic  unity  in  the  state ;  that  it  subjects  minorities  to  the 
cruelty  and  injustice  of  majorities  ;  that  it  degrades  into  a 
mere  commercial  relation  that  which  exists  between  the 
*  Const.  Mass. 


90  INTRODUCTOKY   ESSAY. 

rulers  and  the  ruled  ;  that  it  makes  revolution  the  law  of 
political  life ;  and  that  it  converts  capital  punishment  into 
a  bloodj,  popular  revenge — a  mere  aggression  upon  indivi- 
dual right.  These  objections  will  not  bear  examination. 
They  are  all  founded  either  in  very  fallacious  or  very 
imperfect  notions  as  to  the  true  nature  and  operation  of  the 
doctrine  of  a  social  contract. 

Our  inquirieo  into  the  origin,  nature,  power,  and  sanctions 
of  civil  society  and  government,  draw  after,  or  include  in 
them,  certain  general  principles  of  polity  and  law,  of  no 
little  importance  as  guides  to  legislators,  statesmen,  jurists, 
and  citizens.  They  are  such  as  these  following : — 1.  Human 
society  is,  originally,  a  condition  in  which  all  are  equal, 
free,  and  independent.  2.  Civil  society  curtails  this 
equality,  liberty,  and  independency;  and  so  modifies  natural 
society  as  to  give  to  it  a  recognized  head  and  established  rules 
of  intercourse.  3.  States  are  moral  persons,  enjoying,  with 
respect  to  each  other,  the  same  rights,  and  subject  to  the 
Bame  obligations  as  real  persons.  4.  Tliat  form  of  polity 
may  be  accounted  best,  which  most  effectually  excludes 
tyranny,  without  introducing  anarchy.  5.  The  true  spirit 
of  legislation  is  the  spirit  of  moderation.  6.  Government 
ought  to  be  just,  granting  no  partial  exemptions  and  im- 
posing no  special  burdens.  7.  The  administration  of  justice 
ought  to  be  cheap,  speedy,  equal,  uniform,  and  unembar- 
rassed by  perplexing  technicalities.  8.  The  well-being  of 
the  people  is  the  central  doctrine  of  political  philosophy ; 
benevolence  the  guiding  and  controlling  principle  of  civil 
law.  9.  The  style  in  which  the  laws  are  written,  ought  to 
be  exact,  brief,  and  clear.  10.  Laws  should  arise  out  of 
circumstances,  and  be  relative  to  specific  ends.  11.  Laws, 
and  not  men,  are  the  rulers  in  every  justly  constituted  state. 
12.  Magistrates  should  ever  bear  in  mind,  that  they  are 
God's  ministers  to  the  people  for  good ;  and  this,  not  that 
they  may  be  puffed  up  with  pride,  but  that  they  may  be 


INTKODUCTOKY   ESSAY.  91 

circumspect,  active,  just,  and  merciful  in  the  exercise  of 
their  office,  imitating  and  reflecting,  as  far  as  they  may, 
God's  providence  in  their  care  of  God's  children.  13.  Citi- 
zens must  render  honor,  esteem,  and  obedience  to  magis- 
trates, as  the  representatives  and  vicegerents  of  the  supreme 
and  universal  king.  And,  14.  Law  is  man's  truest  friend, 
and,  next  to  the  divine  providence,  from  which  indeed  it 
cannot  be  rightfully  separated,  his  greatest  benefactor. 


Having  thus  developed  the  true  theory  of  civil  society  and 
government,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  call  the  reader's  attention, 
in  a  few  paragraphs,  to  the  results  of  this  theory,  when  applied 
as  a  principle  of  practical  legislation.  The  American 
Government  and  Union  are  founded  upon  the  principle  of 
the  social  compact,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing  expressed 
in  other  words,  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people.  This  theory  has  had  freer  scope  in  America  than 
has  elsewhere  ever  been  accorded  to  it  for  working  out  its 
legitimate  results.  The  results,  then,  providentially  achieved 
through  the  agency  of  the  American  Union,  will  afford  a 
decisive  test  of  the  excellence  of  the  tlieory  as  a  basis  of 
civil  polity.     Let  us  glance  at  these  results. 

Li  eastern  fable  the  world  is  a  harp.  Its  strings  are 
earth,  air,  lire,  flood,  life,  death,  and  mind.  At  certain 
periods,  an  angel,  flying  through  the  heavens,  strikes  the 
harp.  Its  vibrations  are  those  mighty  issues  of  good  and 
evil,  which  mark  the  destiny  of  our  race.  At  one  time, 
tempests,  earthquakes,  inundations,  war,  famine,  and  pesti- 
lence follow  the  mystic  touch.  At  another,  all  nature  is 
dressed  in  smiles  and  roses.  The  earth  is  covered  with 
waving  grass  and  luxuriant  harvests.  The  fields  are  gay  with 
bloom.  The  air  is  filled  with  fragrance.  Rich  flocks  and  herds 
crown  the  hill-tops,  and  spread  themselves  out  over  the  valleys. 
And  laughter  rings  out  its  merry  peals  on  the  glad  ear  of  hope. 


92  LNTKODUCTORY   ESSAY. 

Tliis  is  the  fable.  The  moral  is  plain.  The  mighty  tract 
of  humau  affairs  is  marked  by  great  epochs.  Time  is  full 
of  eras. 

The  mystic  harp  was  touched,  when  the  pilgrims  set  foot 
on  Plymouth  Rock.  Its  quivering  strings  discoursed  their 
most  eloquent  music.  The  burden  of  the  notes  was, — human 
freedom ;  human  brotherhood ;  human  rights ;  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  people ;  tlie  supremacy  of  law  over  will ; 
the  divine  right  of  man  to  govern  himself.  The  strain  is 
still  prolonged,  in  vibrations  of  ever-widening  circuit.  That 
was  an  era  of  eras.  Its  influence,  vitalized  by  the  American 
Union,  is  fast  becoming  paramount  throughout  the  civilized 
world.  Europe  feels  it,  at  this  very  moment,  to  her  utmost 
extremities,  in  every  sense,  in  every  fibre,  in  every  pulsation 
of  her  convulsed  and  struggling  energies. 

The  great  birth  of  that  era  is  practical  liberty ; — liberty, 
based  on  the  principles  of  the  Gospel ;  liberty,  fashioned 
into  symmetry  and  beauty  and  strength  by  the  moulding 
power  of  Christianity  ;  liberty,  which  "  places  sovereignty  in 
the  hands  of  the  people,  and  then  sends  them  to  the  Bible, 
that  they  may  learn  how  to  wear  the  crown."*  And  what 
a  birth  !  Already  is  the  infant  grown  into  a  giant.  Liberty, 
as  it  exists  among  us,  that  is,  secured  by  constitutional 
guaranties,  impregnated  with  Gospel  principles,  and  freed 
from  alliance  with  royalty,  has  raised  this  country  from 
colonial  bondage  and  insignificance  to  the  rank  of  a  leading 
power  among  the  governments  of  earth. 

The  union  of  these  States  under  one  government,  effected 
by  our  national  Constitution,  has  given  to  America  a  career 
unparalleled,  in  all  the  annals  of  time,  for  rapidity  and 
brilliancy.  Her  three  millions  of  people  have  swelled,  in 
little  more  than  half  a  century,  to  twenty -five  millions.  Her 
one  million  square  miles  have  expanded  into  nearly  four 
millions.  Her  thirteen  States  have  grown  into  thirty-one. 
*  Mathew's  "  Bible  and  Civil  Government,"  Lee.  1. 


INTKODrCTOKY   ESSAY.  03 

Her  navigation  and  commerce  rival  those  of  tlie  oldest  and 
most  commercial  nations.  Her  keels  vex  all  waters.  Her 
maritime  means  and  maritime  power  are  seen  on  all  seas 
and  oceans,  lakes  and  rivers.  Her  inventive  genius  has 
given  to  the  world  the  two  greatest  achievements  of  human 
ingenuity,  in  the  steamboat  and  the  electric  telegraph.  Two 
thousand  steamers  ply  her  waters ;  twenty  thousand  miles 
of  magnetic  wires  form  a  net-work  over  her  soil.  The 
growth  of  her  cities  is  more  like  magic  than  reality.  New 
York  has  doubled  its  population  in  ten  years.  The  man  is 
yet  living,  who  felled  the  lirst  tree,  and  reared  the  lirst  log- 
cabin,  on  the  site  of  Cincinnati.  ]S"ow  that  city  contains  one 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  souls.  It  is  larger  than  the 
ancient  and  venerable  city  of  Bristol,  in  England. 

The  univei'sal  Christian  education  of  our  people  is  a 
precious  blessing,  for  which  we  are  indebted  to  our  civil 
constitution  and  our  union  under  it.  Herein  we  enjoy  an 
honorable  distinction  over  all  other  nations.  It  is  not  in 
depth  and  vastness  of  learning,  that  the  peculiarity  consists. 
The  Bacons,  Hookers,  Miltons,  Souths,  Baxters,  Howes, 
Taylors,  and  Owens,  of  the  mother  country,  in  former  times, 
have  but  few  representatives  among  us  at  the  present 
day.  But  what  is  wanting  in  depth,  is  made  up  in  breadth. 
The  few  are  less  learned,  but  the  masses  are  more 
enlightened.  Diffusion,  expansion,  universality,  is  the  great 
principle  of  American  knowledge.  This  it  is,  which  dis- 
tinguishes ours  from  all  other  lands.  It  is  the  country  of 
the  free  school  and  the  free  press,  the  country  of  the  cheap 
book  and  the  cheaper  magazine  and  newspaper.  The 
million  are  readers  here.  To  satisfy  so  vast  an  intellectual 
craving,  the  press  pours  out  its  thousands  of  volumes  daily. 
Many  of  these  are  trashy  and  worthless.  But  the  great 
majority  are  not  so.  They  embrace  works  of  the  highest 
value,  in  all  the  departments  of  knowledge,  "  issued  and 
re-issued,"  as  Mr.  Godwin  has  well  said,  "  till  one  doubts, 


94  mTEODTJCTOKT   ESSAY. 

wlietlier  the  world  can  contain  them  all.  Yet  is  there  no 
cessation  to  the  labors  of  the  compositor  and  pressman  ;  for 
what  books  fail  to  hold,  is  uttered  in  the  periodical  and  the 
newspaper,  which,  like  motes  in  the  sunbeam,  fill  the 
whole  air."*  America  prints  and  publishes  twenty-seven 
hundred  newspapers, — full  one  half  of  the  whole  number 
issued  on  the  terraqueous  globe. 

Under  the  broad  segis  of  the  American  union,  life  is 
secure,  property  is  secure,  reputation  is  secure,  the  fruits  of 
industry  are  secure,  up  to  the  point  and  beyond  it,  that  such 
security  is  enjoyed  under  any  other  of  the  governments,  now 
existing  among  men. 

Such  has  been  our  career ;  such  the  results  of  our  imion 
under  a  free  constitution.  In  resources,  present  and  pro- 
spective; in  available  talent;  in  popular  education  and 
intelligence ;  in  religion  and  piety ;  in  practical  philan- 
throphy ;  and  in  indomitable  energy,  to  which  obstacles 
are  but  incentives  ; — in  all  these  attributes  and  possessions, 
we  would  not,  at  this  moment,  exchange  conditions  with 
the  proudest  nation  on  the  globe.  TTe  are  not  afraid  of 
comparison  with  the  oldest  and  the  mightiest.  Though  the 
splendor  of  courts  is  unknown  to  us,  though  no  patrician 
palaces  or  royal  galleries  adorn  our  soil,  yet  we  would  not 
part  with  our  republican  simplicity,  our  republican  freedom, 
our  republican  virtue,  and  our  republican  prosperity  and  hap- 
piness, for  all  that  Europe  boasts  of  ancestral  dignity  and 
modern  magnificence.  "What  a  vivifying  effect  has  freedom 
had  upon  us!  In  every  sense,  we  are  a  positive  people. 
Negatives  have  no  place  in  our  nature.  Every  man,  every 
oro-anization,  is  instinct  with  earnest  vitalities.  Science  is 
here  in  order  to  art.  Art  is  the  handmaid  of  utility.  Philo- 
sophical speculation  itself  is  valued  only  as  it  leads  to  prac- 
tical issues.  Life  is  a  great  school,  in  which  the  problems 
to  be  solved  are  realities,  not  abstractions.  Thought,  deci- 
*  "  Review  of  the  Last  Half  Century." 


INTRODUCTORY   ESSAY.  95 

sion,  actioTi,  are  the  grand  elements  of  our  character  as  a 
people.  Here,  then,  are  other  excellent  and  admirable 
results  of  our  system  of  government. 

Our  example  has  been  a  beacon  light,  and  a  centre  of 
influence,  to  the  whole  American  continent.  When  the 
nineteenth  century  opened,  the  United  States  were  the  only 
republic  in  this  western  world.  What  astonishing  changes 
have  taken  place  since !  How  sublime  has  been  the  ad- 
vance of  liberty  !  There  is  but  one  country, — Brazil, — from 
Behring's  Straits  to  Cape  Horn,  in  which  the  monarchical 
form  of  government  still  prevails.  All  the  rest,  except 
Canada,  have,  in  imitation  of  the  United  States,  by  succes- 
sive throes,  cast  off  colonial  dependence  and  bondage. 
There  are  pregnant  indications,  that  a  similar  destiny  awaits 
the  only  remaining  monarchy ;  that,  ere  the  lapse  of  many 
years,  the  empire  of  Brazil  will  be  blotted  from  the  map  of 
America  ;  and  that  the  imperial  crown  and  purple,  as  apper- 
taining to  this  continent,  will  be  known  only  as  among  the 
things  that  were.  Here  is  another  splendid  result  of  the 
American  union. 

The  influence  of  our  institutions  has  not  been  confined  to 
the  climes  of  the  setting  sun.  Contemporaneous  with  these 
transactions  in  the  western  world,  great  movements  have 
been  going  on,  and  great  results  have  been  effected,  in  other 
parts  of  the  globe.  As  far  back  as  1787,  the  emperor 
Joseph  H,  of  Austria,  observed,  that  the  American  revolu- 
tion had  given  birth  to  refleetions  on  freedom.*  The  fact, 
which  that  intelligent  and  sagacious  monarch  discerned  at 
80  early  a  day,  now  stands  out,  with  the  clearness  of  sun- 
light, to  the  observation  and  knowledge  of  the  whole  world. 

The  people  of  Europe  have  deeply  felt  this  influence.     It 

has  modified  their  sentiments,  opinions,  and  actions.     High 

thoughts,  high  hopes,  high  aspirings  have  been  kindled  in 

men's  bosoms,  and  deeds  of  noble  daring  prompted,  by  the 

*  Mr.  Webster's  Letter  to  Baron  Hulsemanu. 


W>  INTRODUCTORT   ESSAY. 

example  of  American  liberty.  During  the  entire  period; 
wliicli  has  elapsed  since  the  adoption  of  our  federal  consti- 
tution, there  has  been  a  perpetual  restlessness  on  the  part 
of  the  people,  and  a  perpetual  struggle  on  the  part  of  power 
to  retain  and  enforce  its  rule,  lievolutionary  agitations 
have  never  ceased.  But  they  hurst  forth  with  a  violence, 
unknown  before,  in  the  great  crisis  of  1848.  Then  kings 
fled.  Tyrannical  ministers  fled.  Tlie  Pope  fled.  It  seemed 
as  if  the  whole  system  of  aritrtocratic  and  arbitrary  rule  was 
about  to  fall  into  irretrievable  ruin.  Great  was  the  tumult 
of  kingdoms,  deep  calling  unto  deep,  with  responses  loud 
and  portentous.  There  is  a  lull  in  the  storm  at  present;  but 
the  tempest  is  not  over.  There  is  a  suspension  of  the  vol- 
canic action  ;  but  the  lava  boils  and  rages,  deep  in  the 
bowels  of  the  fiery  mountain.  It  will  burst  forth  in  due 
time.  There  will  be  an  eruption  of  popular  sentiment  and 
popular  power,  which  will  bury  despotism  deeper  than  the 
lava  and  ashes  of  Vesuvius  buried  the  cities  of  Herculaneum 
and  Pompeii. 

A  significant  token  of  the  influence  of  American  ideas  on 
European  affairs  is  the  fact,  that  even  the  Emperor  of 
Austria,  in  lately  giving  a  new  constitution  to  his  subjects, 
has  introduced  into  it,  doubtless  from  an  outward  pressure 
compelling  him  to  do  so,  several  of  the  great  principles 
of  civil  liberty,  embodied  in  our  polity.*  A  still  more 
significant  token  we  have  in  the  present  condition  of  the 
papacy.  Never  before,  since  Luther  hurled  his  iron  gauntlet 
at  the  door  of  the  Yatican,  has  Kome  tottered  and  reeled,  as 
under  the  heavings  of  the  political  earthquake  of  1848.  The 
papacy,  though  not  dead,  is  dying.  Like  an  expiring 
giant,  it  puts  forth  gigantic  energies,  even  in  the  death- 
struggle.  Its  latest  usurpation,  the  daring  attempt  to  re- 
establish its  ecclesiastical  rule,  and  cast  the  fetters  of  its 
worn  out  superstition,  over  gospel-enlightened  England,  is 
*  Mr.  Webster's  Letter  to  Baron  Hulsemann. 


INTKODUCTOKY    ESSAY.  97 

not  tlie  effect  of  conscious  life  and  health,  but  rather  a 
spasm  of  waning  vitality. 

But  American  thouirht,  American  genius  and  American 
freedom  have  extended  their  influence  far  beyond  the  con- 
fines of  European  life  and  society.  Turkey,  Egypt,  Barbary, 
and  a  long  belt  of  the  western  coast  of  Africa,  have  felt 
their  genial  power.  The  Sultan  has  established  religious 
liberty  by  law,  as  the  fruit  of  American  missionary  zeal. 
Persia  owns  the  healthful  pressure  of  American  intelligence 
and  American  piety.  The  wild  Indians  of  our  own  conti- 
nent, the  roving  hunters  and  herdsmen  of  Asia,  the  imbruted 
savages  of  Africa,  the  cannibal  barbarians  of  Polynesia,  and 
the  stolid  and  changeless  dwellers  in  the  flowery  land,  have 
all  been  breathed  upon  by  the  influences  of  a  higher  life, 
emanating  from  this  Christian  republic. 

Here,  again,  do  we  behold  the  noble  fruits  of  our  national 
constitution  and  our  national  union,  in  shaking  the  thrones 
of  despotism,  in  liberalizing  the  political  systems  of  foreign 
lands,  in  widening  the  domain  of  civil  freedom,  and  in 
extending  the  blessings  of  Christian  knowledge  and  civiliza- 
tion to  the  very  ends  of  the  earth. 

There  is  another  glorious  issue  of  our  free  and  common 
government.  It  has  made  our  country  the  true  Bethesda, — 
a  house  of  mercy  for  the  suffering  of  all  lands.  It  has  made 
of  it  a  new  land  of  promise,  to  which  the  oppressed  and 
stifled  millions  of  Europe  are  rushing,  like  the  tides  of  the 
ocean,  to  breathe  the  air  of  hope  and  freedom.  And  let 
them  come  !  God  forbid,  that  our  beloved  country,  whose 
boast  it  is  to  be  free  and  happy  herself,  should  ever  cease  to 
aflord  to  the  sons  and  daughters  of  sorrow,  fleeing  from  the 
wrongs  and  miseries  of  European  despotism,  a  hearty  wel- 
come and  a  happy  home  !  Let  us  not  drive  back  from  our 
shores  one  such  refugee,  to  perish  in  the  flood,  or  starve  in 
the  lap  of  an  unnatural  mother.  Eather,  let  us  extend  to 
all  a  Christian  welcome  and  a  Christian  care.  Let  us  freely 
7 


yy  LNTEODUCTORT    ESSAY. 

bestow  upon  them  the  blessings  of  a  Christian  press,  a 
Christian  ministry,  and  a  Christian  education,  teaching  them 
to  practise  the  duties  of  citizenship  here,  and  to  aspire  to 
tlie  honor  of  a  nobler  citizenship  above.  That  we  have  the 
ability  to  exercise  such  a  ministry  of  love  and  mercy,  is  due 
to  our  union  in  a  federal  government.  Palsied  be  the  hand, 
that  would  sunder  a  bond,  which  confers  so  beneficent,  so 
godlike  a  power  !  Congealed  be  the  fountain  of  life  in  him 
who  would  tear  from  his  country's  brow  so  bright  a  jewel, 
so  resplendent  a  glory  ! 

All  these  are  results  of  our  union,  already  achieved.  But 
the  hopes  which  it  inspires  are  still  more  sublime  and 
animating.  It  M'as  a  saying  of  Archimedes,  that,  if  he  had 
a  place  to  stand  on,  he  could  move  the  world  by  the  me- 
chanical power  of  the  lever.  The  dream  of  the  ancient 
philosopher  is  the  realization  of  our  youthful  republic. 
Standing  upon  the  soil  of  freedom,  and  using  the  lever  of 
Christian  civilization,  she  has  a  place  whereon  and  a  power 
wherewith,  not  only  to  move  the  world,  but  to  transform  it 
from  a  desolate  wilderness  into  the  garden  of  the  Lord, 
covering  it  with  the  light  of  truth  and  the  beauty  of  good- 
ness. There  are  two  principles, — American  principles  pre- 
eminently,— which  may  be  made  to  mould  and  sway  the 
destinies  of  this  earth.  They  are  popular  constitutional 
government  and  universal  Christian  education.  The  light 
of  these  principles,  shining  upon  the  nations  in  our  example, 
will  be  like  the  sun  in  the  firmament  at  high  noon, — bright, 
glowing,  penetrating,  and  vivifying.  If  we  are  true  to  our 
position  and  to  the  trust  which  it  involves,  these  principles 
^viU.  move  on,  with  a  constantly  accelei'ated  progress,  till 
they  shall  have  completed  the  circuit  of  the  earth ; — 
dropping  everywhere,  in  their  course,  the  inestimable 
blessings  of  true  liberty, — liberty  based  on  the  Bible,  and 
vivified  by  its  living  power. 

Such  are  the  results  of  the  American 


INTKODUCTORY   ESSAY.  99 

hopes  wliicli  it  insj^ires ;  such  our  mission  as  a  nation  ;  such 
the  part  assigned  us  by  providence,  in  the  great  work  of 
improving  human  affairs. 

Our  path  of  duty  is  straight  onward ;  and  it  is  as  clearly 
defined  to  the  view,  as  the  milky  girdle  of  the  heavens,  in  a 
cloudless  night.  "We  must  stand  by  the  constitution  of  our 
country.  If  that  perish,  our  happiness  perishes  with  it;  the 
hopes  that  swell  the  hearts  of  millions  perish  ;  the  sublime 
enterprises  of  Christian  philanthrophy  are  arrested  ;  and  the 
chariot  wheels  of  the  gospel,  that  are  now  rolling  on  to  the 
conquest  of  a  world,  are  stoj^ped,  turned  back,  and  made  to 
recede  far  within  the  line,  to  which  they  have  already 
advanced.  "We  must  stand  by  the  laws  of  our  country, 
indignantly  frowning  upon  all  sentiments  and  utterances  of 
revolutionary  violence.  We  must  stand  by  the  rulers  of  our 
country,  honoring  them  as  the  ministers  of  God  to  us  for 
good.  We  must  stand  by  the  union  of  our  country,  regard- 
ing it  as  the  spring  of  our  blessings,  the  palladium  of  our 
freedom,  the  sheet-anchor  of  our  felicity,  and  the  star  of 
hope  to  the  oppressed  and  down-trodden  nations.  We  must 
stand  by  the  schools  of  our  country,  multiplying  and  purify- 
ing these  fountains  of  popular  knowledge  and  virtue. 
Above  all,  we  must  imbibe  the  sj^irit,  and  think  the 
thoughts,  and  pray  the  prayers,  and  live  the  life  of  Christ  ; 
for  then  are  w^e  the  best  citizens,  when  we  are  the  best 
Christians.  A  free  government,  a  free  gospel,  a  free  educa- 
tion, a  free  press,  an  open  Bible,  a  reverence  for  authority, 
a  willing  subservience  to  law,  and  an  enlightened,  earnest, 
active  piety,  are  the  great  and  fitting  elements  of  American 
institutions  and  American  character. 

As  a  nation,  we  hold  a  trust  of  mightiest  significance. 
"We  hold  it  in  the  sight  of  suffering  and  struggling  humanity. 
We  hold  it  in  full  view  of  the  illustrious  dead,  whose  spirits 
are  hovering  over  us,  and  whose  affections  are  breathing 
around  us.     Let  us  catch  the  inspiration  of  their  sentiments 


100  intkodtjCtoey  essay. 

and  example ;  and  go  forth,  like  men,  to  the  fulfilment  of 
our  trust.  Let  us  feel  that  we  are  oke  ieople  ;  having  a 
common  history,  a  common  end,  a  common  character,  a 
common  freedom,  and  a  common  destiny.  Let  us  cling,  with 
a  firm  grasp,  to  the  union  of  these  states,  and  to  the  principles 
on  which  it  is  founded.  Let  us  give  to  these  principles, 
under  the  stripes  and  stars  of  our  common  flag,  a  broader 
development,  a  higher  activity.  Let  us  transmit  them  to 
our  children,  as  we  received  them  from  our  fathers,  entire, 
and  untainted, — to  he  by  them,  in  like  manner,  under  th& 
shield  of  the  national  banner,  handed  down  to  theirs,  as  a 
precious  and  perpetual  inheritance.  Tlien  shall  the  repub- 
lic be  preserved,  united  and  flourishing,  to  the  latest  period 
of  time  ;  and  the  civilization,  the  prosperity,  the  happiness, 
flowing  from  our  glorious  Coxstitt^tiokal  Union,  ns  from  a 
perennial  spring,  shall  outstrip  our  fondest  anticipations, 
and  more  than  realise  the  brightest  vision  of  bard  or 
prophet. 

Spirit  of  Washington !  breathe  upon  our  hearts,  inspire  our 
councils,  and  guide  our  policy ! 


BOOK  T.-PRELIMINARY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Introductory  Observations — Nature  and  Plan  of  the  Work — Claims  of  the 
Hebrew  Law  to  our  Study  and  Regard — The  Question  whether  the 
Mosaic  Laws  were  binding  upon  other  Nations  than  the  Hebrews  con- 
sidered. 

The  present  and  the  future,  justly  perhaps,  challenge  oui 
chief  attention  ;  yet  the  past  is  not  without  a  claim  upon  it. 
As  wisdom  will  not  die  with  us,  so  neither  is  its  bii'th  a 
thing  of  to-day.  Brave  men,  according  to  the  sentence  of  the 
Roman  poet,*  lived  before  Agamemnon.  The  wise  preacher 
expresses  a  similar  sentiment  in  another  form  of  words  : 
"That  which  has  been  shall  be,"  says  he,  "and  there  is 
nothing  new  under  the  sun."f 

History  is  philosopliy  teaching  by  example.  But,  unless 
its  lessons  be  correctly  read,  they  will  have  little  value. 
History  is,  eminently,  a  work  of  interpretation.  But  the 
interpretation  will  vary  with  every  degree  of  knowledge 
and  skill  in  the  interpreter.  A  chief  function  of  the  philo- 
sophical historian,  is  to  trace  out  the  great  parallelisms  of 
opinions,  manners,  usages,  and  institutions  in  the  difierent 
periods  of  civilization,  and  to  show  how  the  records  of  the 
past  may  be  translated  into  the  conceptions  of  the  present. 
Principles,  substantially  the  same,  are  often  disguissed  to  us 

*  Horace.  t  Ecclesiastes,  i.  9. 


102  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

by  tlie  changing  forms  in  which  they  are  clothed.  An 
ancient  law,  custom,  opinion,  mode  of  action,  or  form  of 
speech,  then  becomes  truly  intelligible  to  ns,  when  we  know 
what  it  corresponds  to  in  the  present  state  of  society,  when, 
we  can  trace  it  to  some  living  experience  of  our  daily  life, 
or  some  universal  principle  of  our  common  humanity.* 

Tlie  past  is  a  dim  page  ;  and  its  obscurity  is  increased  by 
every  increase  of  distance  from  ourselves.  There  are  many 
sources  of  error  in  our  study  of  remote  antiquity ; — the  loss 
of  not  a  few  of  its  most  precious  records,  the  fragmentary 
nature  of  its  remaining  annals,  and  the  strange  shapes  into 
which  its  opinions  and  usages  were  cast.  But  the  greatest 
source  of  misconception,  and  consequently  of  misinterpreta- 
tion, lies  in  the  transfer  of  modern  ideas  to  those  distant 
ages.  Tlie  revolutions  of  time  and  empire  are  accompanied 
by  the  still  more  important  revolutions  of  thought  and 
opinion ;  and  each  succeeding  age  is  apt  to  apply  its  own 
ideas  to  the  interpretation  of  all  the  ages  that  have  gone 
before  it.  If  we  would  grapple  successfully  with  the  study 
of  antiquity,  this  prejudice  must  be  overcome;  otherwise  we 
shall  rush  ujjon  error,  and  lose  ourselves  in  a  labyrinth  of 
false  conclusions.  Yet  the  past  must  be  read  in  the  light 
of  the  present;  and,  as  that  light  increases,  the  past  will 
need  to  be  continually  re-read.  In  our  study  of  it,  as  before 
intimated,  we  encounter  only  relics  and  fragments.  It  is 
only  by  repeated  trials  and  by  the  occasional  use  of  skilful 
conjecture,  that  the  disjointed  members  can  be  ultimately 
arranged  into  something  like  the  coherence  of  their  original 
structure. 

The  design  of  the  present  treatise  is,  to  investigate,  open, 
and  apply  the  political  and  moral  lessons  of  a  very  inte- 
resting and  instructive  portion  of  universal  history  ; — the 
polity  and  laws  of  the  Hebrew  people.  For  the  correct 
understanding  and  explanation  of  this  subject,  the  materials 
*  Prospective  Review  for  February,  1848. 


LAWS  0¥  THE  ancie:nt  hebkews.  103 

are  more  ample;  as  well  as  more  reliable,  than  for  tl  e  studj 
of  any  other  history  of  as  high  an  antiquity. 

Learned  men  have  occupied  themselves  in  tracing,  with 
no  little  labor  of  research,  the  migrations  of  particular  races 
of  men;  the  several  seats  into  which  nations  have  passed  ; 
what  were  the  Pelasgic,  the  Dorian,  the  Ionian  coloniza- 
tions;  what  the  Phenician  ;  by  what  track,  and  through 
what  stopping  places,  the  Celts  came  into  Europe  ;  how  the  Pu- 
nic race,  quitting  Asia,  strayed  to  Ireland  ;  and  whence  came 
the  Aztecs,  and  other  aboriginal  tribes  of  the  western  world. 
To  the  elucidation  of  such  themes  has  been  applied,  I  say 
not  unworthily,  the  genius  of  a  Balbi,  a  Malte-Brun,  a 
Bochart,  a  Le  Clerc,  a  Niebuhr,  a  Pinkerton,  and  a  Prescott. 

But  mind  has  its  migrations  not  less  than  body. 

"  Mind  is  like  a  volatile  essence,  flitting  hither  and  thither, 
An  active,  versatile  agent,  untiring  in  the  principle  of  energy," 

Thoughts  colonize,  as  well  as  races.  Ideas,  like  families, 
have  a  genealogy  and  a  propagation.  To  trace  these 
spiritual  migrations,  colonizations,  genealogies  ;  to  ascertain 
when  and  where  the  notions,  which  have  most  widely 
affected  mankind,  sprang  up,  and  how  and  wliither  they 
have  been  propagated :  to  find  out  the  birthplace  of  a  great 
idea  ;  to  follow  it  down  in  its  passage  from  age  to  age,  from 
country  to  countiy,  from  race  to  race,  from  tongue  to  tongue, 
from  author  to  author  ;  to  trace  principles  in  the  revolutions, 
to  which  they  have  given  birth ; — this,  surely,  were  a  work 
not  less  worthy  and  instructive  than  the  other.  It  is  to  a 
labor  of  this  kind  that  I  now  address  myself. 

What  can  afford  nobler  themes  of  study  than  the  master 
minds  of  our  race,  as  seen  in  the  thoughts  created  by  their 
genius,  and  the  institutions  established  by  their  wisdom  ? 
And  what  mind  is  more  worthy  to  engage  the  profound 
attention  ol  our  age,  than  his,  whose  high  mission  it  was, 
under  Providence,  to  found  a  model  government,  combining 


104  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

in  a  remarkable  degree,  liberty  and  law,  the  freedom  of  the 
individual  with  the  welfare  of  the  community?  The  polity 
established  by  Moses  will  be  found,  on  examination,  as  ven- 
erable for  its  wisdom  as  it  is  for  its  antiquity.  The  best 
subsequent  civilization  has  been  built  upon  that  ancient 
law.  The  Hebrew  lawgiver  is,  in  many  respects,  the  maiv 
for  the  present.  He  belongs  not  solely  to  the  past,  as  too 
common  prejudice  imagines.  The  great  principles  of  public 
and  private  law,  which  he  not  only  developed  in  theory,  but 
reduced  to  practice,  are  so  many  lessons  of  inspired  wisdom, 
so  many  lights  of  experience,  to  guide  the  labors  of  states- 
men and  legislators  to  the  end  of  time.  These  lessons  have 
a  special  pertinence  and  value  at  the  present  time  (1850), 
when  nations  are  in  the  birth-pangs  of  liberty. 

It  is  proposed  in  the  following  treatise,  to  institute  some 
inquiries  into  the  foundation  and  structure  of  the  Hebrew 
commonwealth,  and  into  the  nature  and  operation  of  the 
laws,  which  Moses,  by  divine  command,  delivered  to  his 
countrymen.  We  are  entering,  the  reader  will  perceive, 
upon  the  study  of  a  civilization  which  preceded  the  Grecian 
by  nearly  a  thousand  years.  The  Hebrew  civilization  was 
the  earliest  that  history  has  recorded,  in  which  the  human 
faculties  had  free  play.  It  was  the  earliest  civilization 
which  was  based  upon  a  true  faith,  a  just  science  of  politics, 
and  a  right  philosophy  of  life. 

Two  systems  of  civilization, — the  Asiatic  and  the  Egypt- 
ian,— preceded  the  Hebrew  culture.*  The  former  had  its 
foundation  in  the  spiritual  element  of  our  nature ;  the  latter, 
in  the  sensitive  element.  The  leisure  afforded  by  the  shep- 
herd life  of  Arabia  and  India,  led  to  the  observation  of 
nature,  and  induced  a  contemplative  habit  of  mind.  On 
the  other  hand,  an  early  devotion  to  agriculture  directed  the 

*  See  on  this  subject  Salvador's  "  Essay  on  Civilization  before  Moses,'' 
introductory  to  his  "  Histoire  des  Institutions  de  Moise  et  du  Peuple 
Hebreu." 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  105 

Egyptian  mind  to  things  of  practical  utility.  Tlie  study  of 
the  seasons,  the  labors  demanded  by  the  cultivation  of  the 
earth,  the  necessity  of  providing  against  the  overflowings  of 
the  Nile,  the  forethought  and  contrivance  thus  imposed 
upon  men,  and  the  early  discovered  convenience  of  an  inter- 
change of  superfluous  commodities,  opened  a  career  to 
industry,  commerce,  and  the  arts,  which  essentially  modi- 
fied the  Egyptian  civilization.  The  merchants  of  Egypt 
imported  into  their  country  the  speculations  of  Asia,  as  well 
as  its  riches  ;  and  the  sages  of  Memphis  learned  the  philoso- 
phy of  those  Indian  gymnosophists,  whose  wisdom  they  ever 
held  in  the  highest  esteem.  But,  notwithstanding  the  strong 
infusion  of  Indian  into  Egyptian  philosophy,  the  latter  did 
not  cease  to  be  essentially  physical. 

The  speculative  opinions  of  these  countries  gave  shape 
and  color  to  their  political  institutions.  The  Indian  philo- 
sophers, devoted  to  meditation,  endeavored  to  reduce  the 
practical  affairs  of  life  to  the  fanciful  ideas,  which  they  had 
formed  of  the  harmony  of  the  universe.  In  this  spirit,  they 
directed  their  social  organizations.  With  them  religion  was 
the  mother  of  politics.  The  Egyptian  philosophers  reversed 
this  process.  Receiving  their  first  impulse  from  physical 
utility,  they  accommodated  their  religious  faith  and  their 
civil  institutions  to  their  grosser  material  necessities.  Con- 
trary to  what  happened  in  the  former  case,  the  theology  of 
the  Egyptians  flowed  from  their  politics.  /j 

These  two  methods  of  procedure,  though  unlike  in  their 
principle,  encountered,  in  their  application,  the  same  fruitful 
source  of  error.  Physical  vants  are  almost  as  difiicult  to 
determine  with  exactness,  as  those  which  belong  to  our 
mental  or  moral  nature.  The  senses  have  their  illusions 
not  less  than  the  intellect  and  the  heart ;  and  there  is  almost 
as  much  controversy  about  the  useful  and  the  hurtful,  as 
there  is  about  the  just  and  the  unjust.  It  happened,  that 
the  contemplative  philosophers  made  a  fatal,  because  ground- 


106  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

less,  application  of  their  speculative  notions  to  the  social 
order;  and  that  the  physical  philosophers,  mistaking  the 
real  wants  of  humanity,  invented  an  incoherent  and  grovel- 
ling mythology,  which  gave  an  ill-advised  direction  to  men's 
minds. 

At  the  same  time  the  passions  of  individuals,  as  usually 
happens,  obtained  a  mastering  influence  over  these  political 
organizations.  The  men,  capable  of  taking  the  lead  in 
public  affairs,  are  always  but  a  small  part  of  the  whole. 
These  master  spirits  united  together ;  formed  themselves  into 
a  body  ;  and,  preferring  their  private  interests  to  the  interests 
of  the  public,  they  framed  both  their  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
polity  with  a  view  to  the  promotion  of  their  own  personal 
ends.  Hence  resulted,  both  in  India  and  Egypt,  the  estab- 
lishment of  privileged  classes,  called  castes.  These  were 
composed  of  persons,  who,  pretending  to  be  of  a  superior 
nature  to  the  common  herd,  monopolized  science,  legisla- 
tion, religion,  honors,  and  riches.  They  neglected  nothing 
that  could  strengthen  and  extend  their  own  power.  The 
ignorance  and  superstition  of  the  people  were  reduced  to  a 
system.  Idolatry  reigned  in  all  its  hideous  deformity.  The 
multitude  prostrated  themselves  before  vile  and  loathsome 
objects.  Human  victims  were  ofi'ered  up  to  impure  and 
malignant  deities,  Eeligion  was  made  to  consist  in  rites  the 
most  puerile  and  extravagant.  In  short,  an  unrelenting  and 
iron  despotism,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  held  all  men  beneath 
its  crushing  power. 

In  the  midst  of  this  deplorable  superstition  and  tyranny, 
there  appeared  a  man,  endowed  with  a  noble  genius';  deeply 
versed  in  all  the  wisdom  and  all  the  folly  of  those  times ; 
strong  in  the  energy  of  his  own  thought ;  and  expressly 
raised  up  and  qualified  by  Heaven  to  become  the  reformer 
of  his  age.  That  man  was  Moses,  the  inspired  Hebrew  law- 
giver. By  the  wisdom  of  his  policy  and  the  vigor  of  his 
genius,   he  overthrew   the   whole   degrading   apparatus  of 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBEEWS.  l07 

political  jngglerj  and  priestly  despotism.  He  reduced  tlie 
speculative  ideas  of  his  own  and  the  preceding  ages  to  a 
single  sublime  principle  of  simplicity.  He  recognized  the 
welfare  and  happiness  of  the  people  as  the  one  supreme  law 
of  political  philosophy.  He  impressed  a  new  character 
upon  his  age  and  species.  He  gave  a  new  impulse  to  man, 
both  in  his  individual  and  social  energies.  And  he  fixed 
upon  his  labors  the  indestructible  seal  of  a  divine  wisdom 
and  beneficence. 

Tlie  code  of  Moses  substituted,  for  the  ecclesiastical  des- 
potism of  Egypt,  a  moderate  democracy ;  a  government, 
based  upon  the  natural  superiority  of  intelligence ;  a  civil 
constitution,  freely  accepted  by  the  nation  subjected  to  its 
authority.  The  world  has  since  traversed  an  immense  cir- 
cuit of  political  ideas.  But  it  is  now  coming  back  to  the 
principles  of  government,  announced  by  the  inspired  law- 
giver of  Judea. 

To  trace  the  labors  of  this  man,  in  their  progress  and 
results ;  to  unfold  the  system  of  government  and  law,  which 
he  instituted  ;  to  compare  it  with  the  other  schemes  of  civil 
polity  and  jurisprudence,  which  have  prevailed  in  the 
world ;  and  to  show  how  far  the  later  systems  have  been 
modified  and  improved  by  the  earlier, — is  the  purpose  of  the 
following  work.  That  some  method  may  be  observed  in  the 
prosecution  of  this  design,  I  have  arranged  my  materials 
under  six  general  divisions,  each  of  which  will  form  a 
distinct  book. 

The  first  book  will  embrace  a  variety  of  topics,  collateral 
to  the  general  subject  of  the  work,  and  having  important 
relations  to  it. 

The  second  book  will  treat  of  the  organic  law  of  the 
Hebrew  state.  Herein  the  great  principles,  on  which  Moses 
founded  his  civil  polity,  will  first  be  pointed  out ;  and  then 
it  win  be  shown,   how   these  principles  were   applied,   in 


108  COMMENT AEIES   ON  THE 

framing  the  constitution  of  the  state,  and  in  administering 
the  affairs  of  the  government. 

The  third  book  will  nnfold  the  rights  and  duties  of  persons 
in  the  Hebrew  state. 

The  fourth  book  will  exhibit  a  detail  of  the  various  regu- 
lations of  the  Mosaic  code  relating  to  property. 

The  fifth  book  will  treat  of  the  criminal  jurisprudence  of 
Moses. 

The  sixth  book  will  be  devoted  to  an  elucidation  of  the 
Hebrew  sumptuary  and  sanitary  laws,  and  of  such  other 
miscellaneous  regulations,  as  do  not  appropriately  fall  under 
any  of  the  preceding  divisions. 

Throughout  the  entire  discussion  of  my  subject,  it  will  be 
my  endeavor,  on  the  one  hand,  to  clear  away  from  the 
Mosaic  institutions  the  misconceptions  of  ignorance,  and, 
on  the  other,  to  vindicate  their  wisdom  and  humanity  from 
the  malignant  sneers  of  unbelievers  and  the  specious  but 
flimsy  sophistries  of  misnamed  philosophers.  The  whole 
tribe  of  infidel  writers  have  fallen  upon  these  institutions, 
and,  as  Warburton*  Btrongly  expresses  it,  have  dipped  their 
pencils  in  sulphur,  in  order  to  delineate  them  with  horns 
and  tails.  Yoltaire  calls  the  Mosaic  constitution  a  detestable 
polity.  Bolingbroke  and  Spinoza  brand  it  with  names 
almost  equally  hard.  Morgan  does  not  scruple  to  charac 
terize  it  as  a  refinement  upon  the  superstition  of  Egypt.  He 
unblushingly  pronounces  its  laws  unjust,  cruel,  tyrannical, 
and  barbarous.f  While  the  whole  tribe  of  German  ration- 
alists, transcendentalists  and  pantheists  affect  to  regard  the 
Mosaic  history  as  a  tissue  of  fables,  gross  in  conception, 
clumsy  in  execution,  and  revolting  in  morals. 

How  far  these  grave  charges,  proceeding  from  men,  who 
have  assumed  the  oflice  of  public  teachers,  either  spring 
from  ignorance  of  the  Mosaic  institutions,  or  are  founded  on 

*  Divine  Legation,  B.  5.  §  1. 

t  Lowman  ou  the  Civil  Government  of  the  Hebrews,  C.  1. 


■LAWS   OF  THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  109 

such  a  predisposition  to  censure  and  condemn,  as  dares  first 
to  falsity,  in  order  afterwards  to  treat  them  as  criminal  and 
ridiculous,  will,  I  trust,  sufficiently  appear,  in  the  progress  of 
these  inquiries. 

The  intelligent  reader  will  have  noticed,  that,  in  this 
attempt  to  elucidate  the  polity  and  laws  of  the  ancient 
Hebrews,  the  classification  of  Sir  William  Blackstone  has 
been  adopted,  as  far  as  it  is  applicable  to  the  subject  in 
hand.  In  these  researches,  it  is  proposed  to  consider,  in 
succession,  the  several  enactments,  or,  at  least,  the  several 
classes  of  enactments,  in  the  Hebrew  code.  It  is  proposed 
to  inquire  into  the  ground,  or  reasons,  on  which  the  laws 
were  based ;  whether  those  reasons  have  respect  to  the  rela- 
tion of  the  laws  to  the  general  wants  of  humanity,  or  their 
relation  to  the  times  and  circumstance?,  in  v/hich  the  code 
had  its  origin.  It  is  proposed,  further,  as  opportunity  ofiers, 
or  occasion  may  seem  to  require,  to  institute  comparisons 
between  the  legislation  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  legislation 
of  other  enlightened  nations,  both  ancient  and  modern. 

If  the  results,  to  which  my  investigations  have  conducted 
me,  are  not  fallacious,  the  discussion,  on  which  we  are 
entering,  will  exhibit  Moses  as  a  man  of  magnanimous  soul, 
and  a  legislator  of  consummate  ability.  It  will  evince  the 
credibility  and  truth  of  his  history,  and  vindicate  his  claim 
to  a  divine  legation.  It  will  establish  an  immeasurable 
superiority  in  the  Mosaic  institutes  of  government  over  all 
other  ancient  polities.  It  will  exhibit  them  as  embodying  all 
the  elements  of  the  most  refined  and  exalted  statesmanship, 
and  as  entering  deeply  into  the  subsequent  legislation, 
philosophy,  literature,  morals,  and  general  civilization  of 
mankind.  It  will  prove  the  error  of  those  philosophers,  who 
have  denounced  the  Jewish  lawgiver  as  the  apostle  of  des- 
potism. It  will,  on  the  contrary,  demonstrate  the  fact,  that 
it  is  to  his  admirable  legislative  policy  the  world  is  indebted 
for  its  first  ideas  of  constitutional  republican  liberty.     In 


110  COIOIENTAillES    ON    THE 

fine,  it  will  show,  that  civil  liberty,  founded  on  eqaal  rights, 
guarded  bj  written  constitutions,  and  acting  through  the 
popular  will,  was  a  blessing  unknown  to  all  antiquity, 
beyond  the  single  commonwealth,  founded  by  that  illustri- 
ous man,  who,  impelled  by  a  lofty  faith  and  a  generous 
patriotism,  nobly  declined  the  honors  of  a  throne  to  lead 
forth  his  enslaved  countrymen  to  freedom  and  independence 
and  regulated  government;  among  whom  he  sought  no 
other  preeminence,  than  preeminent  toil  and  devotion  to  his 
country's  welfare. 

The  Hebrew  law  has  special  claims  upon  the  attention  of 
the  antiquary,  the  theologian,  the  moralist,  the  lawyer,  the 
statesman,  and  the  friend  of  popular  liberty. 

The  mere  lover  of  antiquarian  research  will  here  find 
much  to  gratify  a  liberal  curiosity.  No  other  body  of  laws, 
of  an  antiquity  at  all  comparable  to  that  of  the  Hebrew 
code,  has  come  down  to  us  entire.*  What  a  Greek  would 
call  ancient  was  quite  modern  to  a  Hebrew.  The  Dracos, 
the  Solons,  and  the  Lycurguses  w^ere  many  centuries  poste- 
rior to  tlie  Jewish  legislator.  With  the  exception  of  the 
Egyptian  monarchy,  of  which  we  have  little  authentic  infor- 
mation, reaching  back  to  the  exodus  of  the  Israelites, 
scarcely  a  few  fragments  of  the  laws  of  the  contemporane-._>u8 
states, — as  the  Assyrian,  Phrygian,  Lydian,  and  Trojan, — 
remain  to  the  present  time.  Not  only  have  those  mighty 
empires  themselves  fallen ;  but  their  institutions, — their 
entire  systems  of  government  and  administration,  their 
municipal,  civil,  ecclesiastical,  military  and  moral  laws, — 
have  perished  also.f  They  are  buried  in  a  total  darkness, 
and  the  knowledge  of  them  is  obliterated  from  the  memory 
of  men.  But  the  Hebrew  code  has  descended  to  us  entire. 
It  has  the  completeness  and  clearness  with  which  it  came 
from  the  hand  of  the  lawgiver.     It  has  survived  the  ravages 

*  Michaelis'  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  1. 
.  f  J.  Q.  Adams'  Letters  to  bis  Son,  p.  34. 


LAWS   OF   THE   A2JCIENT   HEBREWS.  Ill 

of  time,  and  remains  as  a  venerable  and  precious  relic  of 
the  most  ancient  legislative  wisdom.  This  consideration 
alone  renders  the  Mosaic  law  very  remarkable,  and  invests 
it  with  a  peculiar  interest  and  charm  to  the  lovers  of  anti- 
]^uarian  lore. 

But  this  law  has  immeasurably  higher  claims  upon  the 
attention  of  the  theologian.  It  is  important  for  him  to  study- 
it,  first,  that  he  may  become  acquainted  with  its  divinity 
The  theological  principles  and  purposes  of  the  Jewish  law 
constitute  a  remarkable  and  important  branch  of  it.  The 
primary  truth  of  its  theology,  the  truth  which  underlies  the 
whole  system,  the  truth  which  it  is  the  leading  object  of  the 
system  to  unfold  and  enforce,  is  that  great  doctrine,  which 
forms  the  basis  of  all  true  religion — the  self-existence, 
eternity,  unity,  perfections,  and  providence  of  Jehovah,  the 
creator  of  heaven  and  earth./  Setting  itself  in  opposition  to 
the  universal  religious  belief  and  practice  of  mankind,  at 
the  time  of  its  promulgation,  it  rejected  and  denounced  all 
false  gods  ;  all  image-worship,  whether  the  object  of  adora- 
tion was  intended  as  a  representation  of  the  true  God,  or  of 
idols ;  and  all  the  absurdities,  pollutions,  impieties,  and 
abominations  of  idolatry,  of  every  name  and  sort.  iN^or  was 
this  all.  Tlie  law  of  Moses  revealed,  in  type  and  shadow, 
the  whole  mystery  of  redemption,  through  the  sacrificial 
death  and  the  intercession  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  prepared  the 
way  for  the  introduction  and  universal  difi"usion  of  that 
more  spiritual  religion,  which  was  promulgated  in  the 
gospel.  This  is  largely  proved  by  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.'  Still  further:  Kot  only  did  the  Mosaic 
law  maintain  the  radical  principles  of  true  theology,  not 
only  did  it  prepare,  by  its  typical  representations,  for  the 
introduction  of  the  gospel  and  tlie  establishment  of  Messiah's 
kingdom,  but,  by  the  spirituality,  breadth,  and  strictness  of 
its  moral  precepts,  it  probed  the  human  heart  to  the  core, 
and   laid  bare  the  depths  of  its  depravity.     Thus   did   it 


112  COMMENTARIES    ON   'HIE 

expose  to  man  his  moral  weakness,  his  inability  to  obtain 
eternal  happiness  on  the  ground  of  his  own  merit,  and  his 
need  of  a  justifying  righteousness  out  of  himself.  Thus  did 
it  shut  him  up  to  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  and  serve  as  "  a 
schoolmaster  to  bring  him  to  Christ."* 

There  is  a  second  reason  why  the  theologian  should  be- 
come well  versed  in  the  Mosaic  law ;  and  that,  not  merely 
as  containing  a  body  of  divinity,  but  also  as  developing  a 
system  of  civil  legislation.  It  is,  that  he  may  be  able  to 
vindicate  the  divine  original  of  the  law.  He  ought  to  make 
himself  acquainted  with  the  circumstances  of  the  Jewish 
people,  and  with  the  ideas  and  usages  of  those  distant  ages, 
to  the  end  that  he  may  know  the  reasons  on  wliicli  the  laws 
were  grounded,  and  the  objects  they  were  designed  to  sub- 
serve. No  otherwise  can  he  become  prepared  to  offer  a 
solid  and  rational  defence  of  the  system,  as  of  divine  origin 
and  authority.  Several  of  the  statutes  of  the  Hebrew  code, 
— for  example,  tliose  relating  to  usury,  to  the  fallow  of  the 
seventh  year,  to  commerce,  to  the  periodical  remission  of 
debts,  &c.— have  been  assailed  as  destitute  of  the  essential 
elements  of  general  legislative  policy. f  Others, — as  those 
relating  to  war  and  penal  justice, — have  been  held  up  to 
execration,  as  breathing  a  cruel,  vindictive,  revengeful 
spirit.  Others, — as  those  relating  to  polygamy,  divorce, 
slavery,  and  blood-avengeraent, — have  been  denounced  and 
decried  as  contravening  the  principles  of  immutable  mo- 
rality. AVliile  others  still, — as,  for  instance,  the  statutes 
relating  to  meats,  to  the  mode  of  cutting  the  hair  and  beard, 
to  the  boiling  of  a  kid  in  the  dam's  milk,  to  the  sowing  of 
mixed  seeds,  to  the  combination  of  flax  and  wool  in  the 
same  garment,  &c.  &c. — have  been  profanely  ridiculed,  as 
too  trivial  to  proceed  from  the  Divine  Being.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  make  a  satisfactory  defence  of  these  and  other  liko 

*  See  Dean  Graves's  Lectures  on  the  Pent.,  Ft.  1. 

f  Michaelia'  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  2. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  113 

Btatutes,  without  a  competent  knowledge  of  the  causes,  rela- 
tions, and  objects  of  the  Hebrew  polity.  Whoever,  there- 
fore, would  successfully  vindicate  revelation  against  sceptical 
cavils,  and  meet  the  learning  of  infidelity  with  a  counter 
learning  of  religion,  must  make  himself  well  acquainted 
with  the  Mosaic  institutions. 

The  moralist,  not  less  than  the  divine,  will  find  the 
Mosaic  code  replete  with  principles  and  maxims,  which 
will  repay  an  attenti^'e  study  of  it.  Where,  in  the  whole 
compass  of  human  literature,  can  a  summary  of  moral  duty 
be  found,  comparable  to  that  contained  in  the  decalogue? 
Here  are  the  seminal  principles  of  all  virtue,  piety,  filial 
duty,  justice,  truth,  benevolence,  and  internal  purity.  The 
law  of  Moses  enjoined  supreme  love  to  God,  love  to  our 
neighbor  equal  to  that  which  we  bear  ourselves,  reverence 
for  old  age,  forgiveness  of  injuries,  the  rendering  of  good 
for  evil,  mutual  kindness,  compassion  towards  the  unfor- 
tunate, and  a  generous  hospitality.  It  earnestly  enforced 
the  conviction,  that  God  requires  of  his  rational  creatures, 
not  a  mere  external  service,  but  an  internal  worship ; 
desires  duly  regulated ;  and  a  benevolence  expansive,  ardent, 
and  active.  It  taught,  that  ritual  observances  could  not 
obtain  pardon  without  repentance,  nor  repentance  without 
reformation.  It  represented  outward  legal  rites  as  designed 
to  symbolize  and  recommend  inward  holiness,  and  the  love 
of  God  as  a  practical  principle,  stimulating  to  the  cultivation 
of  purity,  justice,  humanity,  mercy,  and  truth.*  In  a  word, 
the  gospel  itself  has  scarcely  a  single  moral  precept,  which 
had  not  been  already  promulgated  in  the  Mosaic  institution. 
In  its  moral  teachings,  Christianity  does  little  more  than 
give  a  greater  breadth  to  principles,  which  Judaism  had 
formed  into  a  body  of  practical  ethics,  more  than  a  thousand 
years  before  Socrates  and  Plato  flourished. 

A  knowledge  of  the  Mosaic  laws  will  be  useful  to  the 
*  Graves  on  the  Pentateuch,  Pt.  1. 


114:  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

lawyer,  as  well  as  to  the  theologian  and  the  moralist.  Every 
motive  that  can  prompt  him  to  the  study  of  the  Grecian  and 
Roman  jurisprudence,  will,  with  at  least  an  equal  force, 
recommend  the  Hebrew  jurisprudence  to  his  attention.  The 
mere  technical  lawyer  may  rest  satisfied  with  a  knowledge 
of  the  laws  actually  in  force  in  the  courts,  where  his  practice 
lies.  But  he  who  aspires  to  a  knowledge  of  the  pliilosophy 
of  law,  will  find  it  necessary  to  extend  his  view  to  the  legis- 
lation of  other  climes  and  other  ages.  To  him  who  knows 
nothing  beyond  the  limits  of  his  own  country,  or  of  the 
nations  nearest  to  it  in  time  and  situation,  many  things  in 
law  will  seem  necessary,  which  yet,  in  other  circumstances, 
are  not  so.  He  will  not  perceive  the  variations  of  legislative 
policy,  which  difference  of  climate,  difference  of  manners, 
difference  of  purpose,  and  a  liundred  other  circumstances 
must  occasion.  Then  only  will  he  become  sensible  of  these 
things,  and  begin,  without  much  perplexity,  to  philosophize, 
like  Montesquieu,  on  the  laws  of  his  country,  when  he  com- 
pares a  variety  of  laws  that  are  strange,  and  seem  at  first, 
perhaps,  almost  absurd.*  But  what  system  of  laws  offers  to 
our  consideration  a  greater  number  of  new  views,  in  tliis 
respect,  than  that  of  Moses  ?  Remounting  to  the  highest 
antiquity,  framed  in  a  distant  quarter  of  the  globe,  and 
adapted  to  a  climate,  a  people,  and  a  purpose,  differing  in 
several  important  particulars,  from  any  thing  known  among 
the  western  nations,  it  offers  to  the  legal  mind  of  Europe 
and  America  a  study,  as  interesting  as  it  is  curious,  as  useful 
as  it  is  recondite. 

But  further :  There  are  some  of  the  Mosaic  laws,  which 
are  still  in  force,  to  a  certain  extent,  and  to  which  reference 
is  often  made  in  actions  at  law.  The  law  resj^ecting  for- 
bidden degrees  of  afiinity  in  matrimonial  alliances,  is  the 
strongest  example  of  this.f  This  law  has  been  formally 
incorporated  into  the  jurisprudence  of  some  Christian  states; 
*  Michaelis  Com.,  Art.  1.  f  Ibid.  Art.  2. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  115 

and  even  where  this  has  not  been  done,  it  is  generally 
regarded  as  embodying,  in  reference  to  the  points  which  it 
embraces,  the  dictates  of  philosophical  morality,  as  well  as 
the  decisions  of  the  divine  sovereignty.  In  regard  also  to 
the  pnnishment  of  mm-der,  Moses  is  often  qnoted,  and  his 
anthority,  at  least,  in  the  opinion  of  many  lawyers,  as  well 
as  divines,  has  still,  with  ns,  the  force  of  law.  How  fre- 
quently, likewise,  is  he  appealed  to,  when  the  question  is 
concerning  divorce,  or  the  punishment  of  seduction?  In 
these  and  other  cases,  where  his  authority  is  acknowledged, 
or  his  rules  and  maxims  of  law  are  appealed  to,  in  our 
courts,  it  is  necessary  for  a  lawyer  to  understand  his  laws, 
in  all  their  bearings.  I  may  add,  with  Michaelis,  that  it  is 
generally  the  most  important,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the 
most  difficult  points  of  law,  which  give  the  civilian  and  the 
advocate,  who  are  learned  in  the  Mosaic  laws,  the  best  op- 
portunities of  making  a  distinguished  figure. 

Statesmen  and  legislators,  equally  with  theologians,  moral- 
ists, and  lawyers,  will  find  the  study  of  the  Mosaic  legislation 
a  rich  source  of  knowledge  and  wisdom.  I  have  before  spoken 
of  the  high  antiquity  of  this  code,  and  claimed,  that,  on  that 
account  alone,  it  is  well  worthy  of  our  study.  But  a  consid- 
eration of  this  nature  forms  neither  its  only  nor  its  high- 
est claim  to  our  attention  and  regard.  It  contains,  undeni- 
ably, the  germ  of  almost  everything  precious  in  modern 
civilization.  It  is  a  common  fountain,  from  which,  as  will 
appear  in  the  sequel,  the  most  enlightened  nations  of  subse- 
quent ages  have  drawn  their  best  principles  of  political,  civil, 
and  criminal  law.  It  abounds  in  shining  specimens  of  philo- 
sophical statesmanship  and  legislative  policy.  In  short,  it  is 
a  system  of  legislation,  which  embodies  and  applies,  with  an 
admirable  skill  and  efficiency,  most  of  the  great  principles  of 
just,  wise,  and  equal  government. 

This  leads  me  to  the  last  observation,  which  I  have  to  make 
in  submitting  this  detail  of  *he  points  of  chief  attraction  in 


116  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

the  Mosaic  polity,  viz.  :  that  it  is  a  legislation,  which  address- 
es itself  with  peculiar  force  to  the  earnest  scrutiny  and  the 
grateful  affection  of  the  friends  of  human  rights  and  constitu- 
tional liberty.  The  book,  which  contains  the  record  of  it, 
might  fitly  be  made  the  text-book  of  the  nations  now  strug- 
gling for  the  supremacy  of  the  popular  principle  in  govern- 
ment. The  early  colonists  of  New  England  proposed  to 
govern  themselves,  for  a  time,  by  the  Hebrew  laws.  This 
resolution  of  theirs  has  caused  many  a  smile  at  their  supposed 
simplicity  and  rudeness.  Most  unjustly!  Those  clear-head- 
ed and  strong-hearted  puritans  distinctly  saw  and  deeply 
sympathized  with  the  spirit  of  freedom,  which  runs  through 
those  institutions.  It  was  this  quality  in  the  laws  of  Moses, — 
their  decided  friendliness  to  civil  liberty,  which  secured  the 
affection  and  imitation  of  our  forefathers.  The  principle  of 
habeas  corpus  was  not  in  the  Mosaic  code.  But  as  this  is  a 
writ,  designed  to  secure  the  citizen  from  unjust  and  illegal 
imprisonment,  and  as  imprisonment  was  a  punishment  un- 
known to  the  Hebrew  law,  there  was  no  occasion,  and,  indeed, 
no  place  for  it  there.  With  this  exception,  there  is  not,  I  be- 
lieve, a  single  fundamental  principle,  which  enters  into  the 
constitution  of  a  free  State,  which  will  not  be  found  to  have 
been  incorporated  into  the  polity  of  the  Hebrew  common- 
wealth. That  government  is  instituted  for  the  good  of  the 
many,  and  not  of  the  few, — for  the  happiness  of  the  people, 
and  not  the  advantage  of  the  prince  and  the  nobles  ;  that  the 
people,  either  directly  or  by  representatives,  should  have  a 
voice  in  the  enactment  of  the  laws  ;  that  the  powers  of  the 
several  departments  of  government  should  be  cautiously  bal- 
anced ;  that  the  laws  should  be  equal  in  their  operation,  with- 
out special  burdens  or  special  exemptions;  that  the  life, 
liberty,  and  property  of  no  citizen  should  be  infringed,  but  by 
process  of  law ;  that  justice  should  hold  an  even  balance, 
neither  respecting  the  persons  of  the  rich,  nor  yielding  to  the 
necessities  of  the  poor ;  that  judicial  proceedings  should  be 


LAWS    OF    THE    AT^CIENT    HEBREWS.  117 

public,  and  conducted  in  accordance  with  estabLslied  rules ; 
that  everj^  man  who  obeys  the  laws,  has  a  right  to  their  pro- 
tection ;  that  education,  embracing  a  knowledge  of  the  laws, 
the  obligations  of  citizenship,  and  the  duties  of  morality, 
should    be  universal,  and  that  whatever  is  valuable  in  po- 
litical and  social  institutions,  rests   upon  the  intelligence  and 
virtue  of  the  people  : — these  great  and  vital  principles  of  civil 
liberty  were  as  fully  embodied  in  the  Hebrew  constitution,  as 
they  are  in  the  freest  constitutions  now  existing  among  men. 
By  the  governments  of  most  ancient  empires  the  people 
were  regarded  as  of  very  little  importance.     Every  where, 
even   in  States  which  boasted  of  their  freedom,  the  masses 
were   degraded,    brutalized,   and     oppressed     by     arbitrary 
power.    To  this  rule  the  Jewish  republic  formed  an  illustrious 
exception.     Liberty  to  the  masses,  general  competence,  phy- 
sical comfort,  ease  of  mind,  repose  and  opportunity  of  reflec- 
tion, moral  and  religious  instruction  to  all  classes,  equal  laws, 
equal  rights,  equal  justice, — these  were   the  paramount  ob- 
jects  of  the   Hebrew    constitution,    so   far   as   its   political 
relations  were  concerned.     These  features  mark  its  kindred 
to  our  own,  and  set  it  widely  apart  and  distinct  from  all  other 
governnrr^nts,  which  existed  with  it,  and  for  many  ages  after 
it.     It  is  not  in  Greece  that  liberty  was  cradled.     This   idea 
is,  indeed,  taught  to  our  youth  in  the  halls  of  learning,  and 
proclaimed  to  our  people  from  the  halls  of  legislation.     But 
it  is  none  the  less  an  error.     Far   other  and  higher  is   the 
origin  of  a  blessing,  so  intimately  interwoven  with  the  wel- 
fare and  progress  of  man.     It  was  not  the  wisdom  of  Greece, 
speaking  in  the  halls  either  of  philosophy  or  legislation,  but 
the  wisdom  of  God,  speaking  from  heaven  through  his  ser- 
vant Moses,  which  first  taught  mankind  the  doctrine  of  pop- 
ular rights.     Nothing  can  be  wider  of  the  truth  than  the  idea, 
that  it  is  in  the  political  forms  and  usages  of  the  Grecian  and 
Roman   commonwealths,   we    are   to   seek   the   origin    and 
elements  of  our  own  republican  institutions.     No ;  it  is  rather 


118  COMMENTAKEES   ON   THE 

in  that  admirable  frame  of  government,  given  by  the  oracle 
of  Jehovah,  and  established  by  the  authority  of  the  Supremo 
Ruler  of  the  World,  that  we  find  the  type  and  model  of  our  own 
constitution.  Even  the  Declaration  of  American  Indepen- 
dence,— that  terrible  handwriting  on  the  wall  of  despotism, 
which  has  troubled  the  thoughts  of  many  a  tyrant, — that  glo- 
rious pledge  of  liberty  to  the  oppressed  of  every  clime,  was 
but  an  echo  ft'om  the  deep  thunders  of  Mount  Sinai. 

There  is  a  question  of  considerable  importance,  which  it  is 
proper  briefly  to  consider  in  this  introductory  chapter,  viz.  : 
whether  the  civil  laws  of  Moses  are  binding  upon  us?  The 
Mosaic  laws  are  commonly  divided  into  moral,  ceremonial, 
and  judicial  or  civil.  Concerning  the  first  two  classes,  no 
doubt  can  arise  in  any  mind.  The  moral  laws  are  clearly  of 
perpetual  obligation.  The  ceremonial  laws  were  as  clearly 
abolished  by  Christ.  But  how  is  it  with  the  civil  laws? 
Have  they  been  abrogated  ?  or  are  they  still  in  force  ? 

There  have  not  been  ^'anting  writers  of  high  authority, 
who  have  held,  that  legislators  ought  to  adhere  closely  to  the 
Mosaic  laws,  as  being  the  wisest  that  can  be  framed.  Nor  is 
this  opinion  without  a  plausible  ground  of  support.  The  ar- 
gument affirming  it  runs  thus:  God  was  the  lawgiver  of  the 
Hebrew  people  ;  but  God  is  an  infinitely  wise  law-giver ; 
therefore  a  body  of  laws  emanating  from  him  must  be  the 
wisest  that  can  be.  This  reasoning  is  plausible;  but  it  is 
fallacious.  It  overlooks  a  material  distinction  ; — the  distinc- 
tion between  laws  intrinsically  the  wisest,  and  laws  which 
are  the  wisest  only  when  viewed  as  relating  to  times  and  cir- 
cumstances. Laws  may  be  perfectly  wise,  when  framed  with 
reference  to  one  state  of  society,  which  would  be  unwise  and 
absurd,  if  framed  with  reference  to  another  condition  of  things. 

Civil  laws,  whatever  be  their  source,  to  be  adapted  to  the 
wants  of  any  given  community,  must  arise  out  of  circum- 
stances, and  be  relative  to  certain  specific  ends;  which  ends, 


LAWS    OF  THE   ANCIENT   HEBEEWS.  119 

nnder  other  circumstances,  it  might  be  the  height  of  follj  to 
pursue.  When  Solon  was  asked  whether  he  had  given  the 
best  laws  to  '^he  Athenians,  he  replied:  "I  have  given  them 
the  best  that  they  were  able  to  bear."*  Sage  response  !  Is 
it  not  of  much  the  same  nature  with  that  declaration  of  divine 
wisdom  to  the  Jews,  which  has  so  perplexed  biblical  inquirers, 
— "  I  gave  them  also  statutes  that  were  not  good,"f  that  is, 
laws  not  absolutely  the  best,  though  they  were  relatively  so. 
Montesquieu, :|:  with  that  penetration  which  belongs  to  all  his 
philosophical  reflections,  has  observed,  that  the  passage,  cited 
above,  is  the  sponge  that  wipes  out  all  the  difficulties,  which 
are  to  be  found  in  the  law  of  Moses.  This  view  of  the  meaning 
and  force  of  the  passage  is  confirmed  by  the  words  of  our 
Savior.  -He  has  told  us,  that  Moses  tolerated  divorce  among 
the  Jews,  because  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts.§  It  is 
reasonable  to  conclude  that  he  permitted  the  continuance  of 
other  social  evils  on  the  same  principle.  It  is  implied  in  our 
Lord's  declaration,  that,  if  the  Jews  of  Moses'  time  had  been 
less  hard-hearted,  that  is,  less  prejudiced,  less  wedded  to  old 
notions  and  usages,  several  of  his  statutes  would  have  been 
different  from  what  they  were.  Is  it  not  also  involved,  that 
the  excellence,  which  Moses  claims,  and  most  justly,  as  be- 
longing to  his  laws,  is,  as  it  respects  some  of  them  at  least,  a 
relative  rather  than  an  absolute  excellence  ?  Considerations 
of  political  expediency  were  often  of  prevailing  force  with 
him  in  framing  his  laws. 

A  wise  legislator,  whether  divine  or  human,  in  framing  a 
new  code  of  laws  for  a  people,  will  give  attention  to  consider- 
ations of  climate,  of  religion,  of  existing  institutions,  of  settled 
maxims  of  government,  of  precedent,  of  morals,  of  customs, 
and  of  manners.!  Out  of  all  these  there  arises  a  general 
tone,  or  habit,  of  feeling,  thinking,  and  acting,  which  consti- 
tutes what  may  be  called  the  spirit  of  the  nation.     Now,  a 

*  Plutarch's  Life  of  Solon.  f  Ezek.  xx.  25. 

X  "  Spirit  of  Laws,"  B.  19.  C.  21.  ^  Mat.  xix.  8.    Mark  x.  5. 

11  Mich.  Com.  Art.  8. 


120  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

lawgiver  shows  liuriself  deficient  in  legislative  wisdom,  who 
makes  laws  which  shock  the  general  sentiment  of  the  people, 
laws  which  are  at  war  with  prevalent  notions  and  rooted  cus- 
toms, laws  whicii  strip  men  of  long  established  and  favorite 
rights.  Nations  in  general  cling  tenaciously  to  what  is  old. 
True  legislative  wisdom,  therefore,  will  abide  by  established 
laws,  when  it  can,  even  though  satisfied,  that  other  laws  are 
better  in  themselves,  and,  but  for  the  force  of  custom  in  favor 
of  the  old,  would  be  more  expedient.  A  wise  lawgiver,  who 
desires  to  see  ancient  usages  replaced  by  new  and  different 
ones,  will  not  attempt  to  change  such  customs  at  once,  by  di- 
rect legal  enactments,  but  will  seek,  by  the  introduction  of 
judicious  provisions  into  his  code,  to  lead  the  people  to  change 
them  themselves. 

Balbi,  a  citizen  of  the  Republic  of  Yenice,  being  at  Pegu, 
was  introduced  to  the  king.  In  tlie  interview  which  followed, 
he  informed  the  monarch,  that  they  had  no  king  in  his  coun- 
try. The  latter  instantly  burst  into  a  laugh,  which  ended  in 
such  a  fit  of  coughing,  that  it  was  a  long  time  before  he  was 
able  to  resume  the  conversation.*  What  wise  man,  in  framing 
a  code  of  laws  for  such  a  people,  would  propose  the  consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  as  the  basis  of  it?  The  establish- 
ment of  a  popular  government  would  be  the  greatest  calamity 
that  could  happen  to  such  a  nation.  The  best  laws  cannot  at 
once  be  given  to  a  people  tliat  has  long  been  under  bad  ones. 
Their  minds  must  be  prepared  for  the  reception  of  the  best 
laws  by  the  discipline  of  others,  which  are  as  good  as  they  can 
bear.  The  pleadings  of  the  Roman  advocates  at  the  civil  tri- 
bunal of  Varus  were  so  odious  to  the  Germans,  that  they  cut 
out  their  tongues,  crying, — "Viper,  don't  hiss."f  There  was 
nothing  with  which  Mithridates  so  much  reproached  the  Ro- 
mans, as  the  formalities  attending  their  proceedings  at  law4 
And  the  Parthians  could  not  endure  the  polished  and  easy 
manners  of  one  of  their  kings,  who  had   been   educated   at 

*  Moatesquieu's  Sp.  of  Laws,  B.  19.  C.  2.  f  Ibid.  X  Ibid. 


LAWS   OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  121 

i,ome.  The  virtues  of  refinement  and  affability,  because  un- 
known to  that  savage  nation,  Tacitus  says,  were  regarded  by 
them  as  new  vices. 

The  principle  that  laws  must  be  relative  to  circumstances, 
that  they  must  grow  out  of  the  state  of  society,  and  be  adapted 
to  its  wants,  is  founded  in  reason,  and  confirmed  by  experi- 
ence. It  is,  therefore,  a  just  and  solid  principle,  and  must 
commend  itself  as  such  to  every  enlightened  judgment.  But 
it  involves  this  clear  and  certain  inference,  thai  God  never 
intended  the  Mosaic  laws  to  bind  any  nation  but  the  Hebrews ; 
and  that  it  would  be  quite  foolish  to  detach  particular  parts 
from  the  rest,  and  to  attempt  the  ingrafting  of  them  on  other 
systems,  to  which  they  must  prove  incongruous.  The  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  Hebrew  polity, — the  suppression  of 
idolatry  and  the  maintenance  of  the  worship  of  the  one  true 
God, — so  diverse  from  that  of  every  other  government  ever 
known  among  men,  could  not  but  enter  essentially  into  the 
frame  of  the  laws.  Besides  this,  the  circumstances  of  climate, 
soil,  situation,  political  relations,  character  and  power  of  the 
neighboring  nations,  customs,  mode  of  life,  prevalent  notions 
as  to  honor  and  disgrace,  and  the  nature  and  severity  of  pun- 
ishments, species  and  sources  of  crime,  kinds  of  disease,  &c. 
&c.,  would  modify  a  divine,  quite  as  much  as  they  would  a 
human  legislation  ;  and  still  more,  perhaps,  in  proportion  to 
its  superior  wisdom.  If  God  were  now,  by  special  revelation, 
to  enact  a  code  of  civil  laws  for  every  nation  on  the  globe, 
it  is  not  likely,  that  any  two  of  them  would  agree  in  every 
particular.  It  is  certain,  for  example,  that  in  such  a  code, 
framed  for  the  United  States,  there  would  be  wanting  the  old 
Hebrew  laws  respecting  divorce,  polygamy,  blood-avenge- 
ment,  usury,  the  double  portion  of  the  first-born  son,  the  ex- 
clusion of  daughters  from  the  inheritance,  the  marriage  of  a 
deceased  brother's  childless  widow,  and  the  sumptuary  laws 
in  general ;  for  none  of  the  reasons,  on  which  these  laws  were 
based,  has  any  existence  among  us;  and  to  separate  a  law 


122  COMMENT AKIES   ON    THE 

from  its  principle,  is  like  sundering  the  body  from  the  head  or 
the  heart.  No  part  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  is  more  excel- 
lent or  admirable  than  the  statute  respecting  the  distribution 
and  tenure  of  lands.  Yet  there  is,  probably,  not  a  nation 
■upon  earth,  at  the  present  time,  into  whose  civil  code  such  a 
law  could  be  introduced,  without  a  violation  of  justice,  and 
without  shaking  society  to  its  deepest  foundations.  Where  is 
the  nation,  now  existing,  that  has  its  entire  territory  unappro 
priated?  But  where  this  is  not  the  case,  with  what  justice 
could  an  equal  partition  of  the  land  be  made  ?  Yet  this  was 
the  first  great  principle  of  the  Hebrew  agrarian  ;  and,  in  a 
nation  situated  as  the  Hebrews  were,  at  the  formation  of 
their  code,  it  w^as  equitable  and  wise.  The  second  fundamen- 
tal principle,  which  was  equall}^  just  and  beneficial,  was  an 
absolute  prohibition  of  the  sale  of  land  in  perpetuity.  Yet, 
wise  and  righteous  as  this  principle  was  in  the  Hebrew  polity, 
what  greater  hardship  could  a  lawgiver  put  upon  those  mem- 
bers of  the  state,  who,  when  he  framed  his  laws,  were  desti- 
tute of  landed  property,  than  that  to  which  such  a  provision 
would  subject  them  ? 

Moses  himself,  it  is  quite  evident,  wa-s  often  compelled,  by 
the  force  of  circumstances,  to  admit  into  his  code,  laws,  which 
under  a  different  state  of  things,  he  would  gladly  have  seen 
replaced  by  others.  The  law  requiring  a  man  to  marry  the 
widow  of  a  brother,  who  had  died  without  issue,  is  an  instance 
in  point.  It  is  plain,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  that  Moses 
cared  very  little  for  the  execution  of  this  law,  and  only  gave 
place  to  it  among  his  statutes  as  a  piece  of  ancient  Israelltish 
manners,  and  because  he  did  not  wish  to  shock  the  prejudi- 
ces of  his  countrymen  by  abolishing  it.  Throughout  his  le- 
gislation there  are  traces  of  the  influence  of  a  more  ancient 
system  of  laws, — a  lex  non  scripta,  or  jus  consuetudinarium, 
— of  much  the  same  nature  and  force  as  the  common  law 
among  us.  Moses,  as  any  wise  legislator  would  do,  (and  cer- 
tainly he  was  all  the  wiser  for  being  inspired,)  paid  no  little 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  123 

deference  to  this  law  of  custom.  Sometimes  he  confirmed  it, 
as  it  stood ;  sometimes  he  improved  it  by  amendments  ;  eome- 
times  he  restricted  its  operation ;  and  sometimes  h  •  annulled 
it  altogether.* 

But  more  than  this :  The  purely  civil  laws  of  Moses  could 
be  repealed  or  changed,  as  the  altered  state  of  the  coumion- 
wealth  required  or  justified,  even  during  the  continuance  of 
the  Mosaic  government.  For  example,  Moses's  first  law 
against  usury  forbade  the  taking  of  interest  from  the  poor  Is- 
raelites only  ;f  his  second  law  on  the  subject  extended  the 
same  prohibition  to  the  whole  nation.:}:  His  statute,  forbid- 
ding to  kill  animals  for  food  In  private,  and  enjoining  to  bring 
all  such  to  the  altar  and  ofi'er  them  to  Jehovah,§  remained  in 
force  only  during  the  abode  in  the  wilderness.  It  was  for- 
mally repealed  on  entering  the  promised  land.f  The  punish- 
ments originally  annexed  to  the  violation  of  laws,  must  be 
increased  in  severity,  when,  as  often  happens  in  the  progress 
of  society  and  of  crime,  they  become  too  mild  to  secure  obe- 
dience to  the  civil  rule.  Hence  the  penalty  for  theft,  which 
Moses  had  fixed  at  a  fourfold  or  fivefold  restitution,"!  was 
increased  to  a  sevenfold  restitution  in  the  time  of  Solomon.** 
The  highest  fine  imposed  by  Moses  in  punishment  for  crime, 
was  about  fifteen  dollars.  What  would  that  be,  when  the  in- 
creasing wealth  of  the  nation  had  proportionably  diminished 
the  value  of  gold  and  silver  ? 

There  is,  indeed,  an  expression  attached  to  many  of  the 
Mosaic  laws,  which,  at  first  blush,  would  seem  to  make  them 
absolutely  unalterable.  The  expression  is, — "  a  statute  to  you 
forever,  throughout  your  generations."f  f  The  question  i3  :  Is 
this  form  of  words  to  be  taken  literally,  or  metaphorically  ? 

*  Mich.  Comment,  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  3.       f  Exod.  xxii.  25. 
X  Deut.  xxiii.  19.  §  Levit.  xvii.  3-7.  ||  Deut.  xii.  20,  21. 

^  Ex.  xxii.  1.  **  Prov.  vi.  31. 

ff  Ex.  xxvii.  21.  XXX.  21.  Lev.  ill.  17.  vi.  8.  vii.  36.  x.  9. 
svii.  7.    xxiii.  14.  21,  31,  41. 


124  COMMENTARIES   ON    THE 

Does  it  mean  always,  or  only  a  great  while?  The  words  are 
annexed  to  the  prohibition  against  the  killing  of  animals  in 
private,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  subsequently  repealed 
by  Moses  himself.*  This  makes  it  certain  that  the  latter  is 
the  true  meaning  of  the  expression.  It  simply  marks  the 
distinction  between  permanent  laws  and  those  regulations 
whicii  were  made  for  a  limited  time.  It  signifies  a  law,  which 
was  to  continue  in  force,  till  regularly  abrogated,  or  modified. 
The  views,  above  presented,  warrant  the  conclusion,  that 
the  Mosaic  laws  do  not  bind,  and  were  never  intended  to 
bind,  other  nations.  But  this  does  not  detract  from  the  value 
of  the  Hebrew  jurisprudence,  as  a  philosophical  and  practical 
study,  any  more  than  the  fact,  that  the  Roman  and  British 
laws  are  not  obligatory  on  us,  detracts  from  the  value  of  the 
Eoman  and  British  jurisprudence.  "We  are  at  liberty  to  bor- 
row what  is  good  in  the  laws  of  other  nations,  however  remote 
from  us  in  time  or  space.  My  neighbor's  lantern  may  be  very 
useful  to  me,  though  I  do  not  follow  by  its  light  exactly  the 
same  path  which  he  pursued.  In  like  manner,  the  laws  of  a 
foreign  state  may  aftbrd  a  highly  advantageous  light,  though 
we  do  not  copy  everything  which  they  contain.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  survey  the  legislative  policy  of  the  Hebrews  without 
feeling  the  highest  admiration  of  its  wisdom,  equity,  and  be- 
nevolence. It  was  a  policy,  directed  not  to  foreign  conquest, 
but  to  the  culture  and  benefit  of  their  own  territory  ;  a  policy 
founded  on  the  arts  of  peace.  "  If  we  were  better  acquainted 
with  the  comprehensive  and  far  extended  legislative  know- 
ledge of  this  people,  very  probably  our  own  political  system, 
so  far  at  least  as  connected  with  agriculture,  and  as  directed 
to  the  peaceful  increase  of  our  internal  strength  as  a  nation, 
might  receive  material  improvement." 

*  Levit.  xvii.  7.    Deut.  xii.  20,  21. 


LAWS   OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  125 


CHAPTER  II. 

Moses  as  a  Man  and  a  Lawj^'iver. 

The  proofs  of  the  divine  mission  of  Moses  will  be  submitted, 
and  objections  against  it  examined  and  refuted,  in  a  subse- 
quent part  of  this  work.  The  object  of  the  present  chapter  is 
to  study  the  character  of  Moses,  and  to  unfold  the  leading  quali- 
ties of  his  mind  and  heart,  irrespective  of  that  supernatural 
illumination  and  guidance,  which  he  enjoyed  in  the  execution 
of  his  office. 

It  appears  to  be  a  fundamental  principle  in  the  divine  ad- 
ministration never  to  do  in  an  extraordinary  way  that  which 
can  be  equally  well  accomplished  in  an  ordinary  way.  But 
the  heavens  above  us  do  not  more  exceed  in  height  the  earth 
on  which  we  tread,  than  the  methods  of  the  supreme  w^isdom 
transcend  the  utmost  stretch  of  human  policy.  There  is  an 
unseen  but  almighty  hand  behind  the  scenes  of  providence, 
which  brings  them  forward,  directs,  adjusts,  moulds,  or  re- 
moves them,  according  as  the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes 
demands.  By  the  cruel  edict,  which  required  the  Hebrews 
to  cast  all  their  male  children  into  the  river  Nile,  Pharaoh 
intended  to  check  the  growing  greatness  of  a  nation,  whose 
numbers  he  began  to  dread.  But  he  who  sitteth  in  the 
heavens,  and  laughs  at  the  impotent  malice  of  his  enemies, 
nay,  who  even  turns  it  as  a  two-edged  sword  against  themselves, 
had  far  other  purposes  to  answer  through  its  agency.  It  was 
designed  as  the  occasion  of  the  adoption  of  Moses  by  no  less 


126  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

a  personage  than  the  daughter  of  the  reigning  sovereign  ;  and 
this  to  the  intent,  that  the  future  leader  and  lawgiver  of  the 
Hebrew  people  might  be  educated  in  a  manner  suited  to  fit 
him  for  his  responsible  office. 

But  is  there  no  fear,  that  the  child,  breathing  only  the  at- 
mosphere of  the  court,  almost  from  the  first  hour  of  its  being, 
will  lose  all  fellow-feeling  for  his  countrymen,  and  become  an 
Egyptian  in  everything  but  blood  ?  Uo !  The  supreme  wisdom 
is  never  defective,  nor  once  inconsistent  with  itself.  By  a 
contrivance,  no  doubt  suggested  by  the  divine  mind,  the 
mother  of  Moses  becomes  his  nurse.  Thus  the  first  words  he 
hears  is  the  story  of  his  country's  wrongs  ;  the  first  sentiment 
he  feels,  sympathy  for  the  sorrow  of  his  brethren,  mingled 
with  indignation  against  their  oppressors. 

Inspiration  apart,  Moses  possessed  all  those  endowments  and 
qualities,  which  form  the  consummate  statesman  and  chief 
magistrate  : — an  intellect  of  the  highest  order  :  a  perfect  mas- 
tery of  all  the  civil  wisdom  of  the  age  :  a  penetrating,  com- 
prehensive, and  sagacious  judgment:  great  promptness  and 
energy  in  action  :  patriotism,  which  neither  ingratitude,  ill- 
treatment,  nor  rebellion  could  quench,  or  even  cool  :  a  com- 
manding and  persuasive  eloquence:  a  hearty  love  of  truth:  an 
incorruptible  virtue:  an  entire  freedom  from  selfish  ambition: 
an  invincible  hatred  of  tyranny  and  injustice:  a  patient  en- 
durance of  toil:  a  courageous  contempt  of  danger:  and  a  great- 
ness of  soul,  in  which  he  has  never  been  surpassed  by  the 
most  admired  heroes  of  ancient  or  modern  times.  Compre- 
hensiveness, grasp,  force,  sagacity  were  the  predominant  char- 
acteristics of  his  mind ;  magnanimity,  disinterestedness,  an 
enthusiastic  devotion  to  liberty,  and  an  ardent  but  rational 
piety,  the  leading  qualities  of  his  heart. 

The  truth  of  this  observation  may  be  easily  evinced. 

Of  the  greatness  and  vigor  of  his  intellectual  endowments, 
his  own  writings  afford  ample  proof.  Never  was  the  art  of 
writing  little  and  saying  much  displayed  in  higher  perfection. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBEEW8.  127 

A  perfect  idea  is  given  of  the  ground  that  philosophical  his- 
tory ought  to  cover,  including  not  only  the  causes  and  cur- 
rent of  events,  but  also  the  progress  of  society,  manners,  gov- 
ernment, art,  and  religion,  which  prevailed  in  those  early 
ages.  True,  most  of  his  pictures  are  but  sketches  ;  but  every 
touch  reveals  the  hand  of  a  master,  and  rarely  do  we  feel  any 
material  deficiency.  How  vividly,  and  with  what  calm  sub- 
limity, do  a  few  strokes  of  his  pencil  place  the  deluge  before 
us  !  And  whenever  he  favors  us  with  a  finished  portrait, 
with  what  divine  charms  and  graces  does  he  invest  it !  Wit- 
ness the  history  of  the  venerable  patriarch,  who  won  the  ex- 
alted titles  of  the  friend  of  God  and  father  of  the  faithful. 
What  grandeur  of  conception  !  What  elevation  of  sentiment! 
What  dignity  of  style  !  What  simplicity  and  truthfulness  in 
the  narrative  !  What  strength  and  beauty  of  coloring !  What 
exquisite  tenderness  and  pathos  I  Witness  also  the  inimitable 
story  of  Joseph,  the  most  faultless  character,  perhaps,  in  hu- 
man annals,  he  alone  excepted,  who  was  holy,  harmless,  un- 
defiled,  and  separate  from  sinners.  The  strange  and  stirring 
incidents  of  his  life,  and  the  high  and  generous  qualities  of 
his  nature,  are  drawn  in  characters,  which  must  challenge  the 
praises  and  secure  the  afiections  of  mankind,  and  which  make 
us  feel,  that  rivalry  is  forever  distanced,  and  all  attempts  at 
imitation  nugatory  and  hopeless. 

The  poetic  talent  of  Moses,  in  its  perfection  one  of  the  no- 
blest gifts  of  God,  is  a  striking  evidence  of  his  mental  supe- 
riority. Read  the  noble  lyric  ode,  in  which  he  celebrates  the 
passage  of  the  Red  Sea ;  or  that,  yet  more  powerful,  in  which 
he  bids  a  last  farewell  to  his  countrymen.  Among  the  Psalms, 
the  plaintive  elegy,  beginning,  "  Lord,  thou  hast  been  our 
dwelling  place  in  all  generations,"  is  ascribed  to  him  ;  and  none 
of  all  the  number,  exceeds  it  in  mournful  and  afi^cting  beauty.* 

That  Moses  was  master  of  all  the  civil  wisdom  then  extant, 
wo  have  the  testimony  of  the  proto-martyr  Stephen,  who  says 
*  Christian  Examiner  for  Sept.  1836. 


128  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

of  Lim,  that  he  v/as  "  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyp- 
tians."* It  is  the  acute  and  solid  observation  of  Bishop  War- 
burtonf  on  this  passage,  that  when  the  w'sdom  of  a  nation  is 
spoken  of,  that  which  is  characteristic  of  the  nation  must 
needs  be  meant ;  when  the  wisdom  of  a  man,  that  which  is 
peculiar  to  his  quality  and  profession.  On  both  grounds, 
civil  or  political  wisdom  must  be  here  intended.  It  was  for 
that  the  Egyptian  nation  was  principally  distinguished ;  and 
in  that  also  must  have  consisted  the  eminence  of  one,  who 
had  a  royal  adoption,  was  bred  up  at  court,  and  became  at 
length  the  leader  and  lawgiver  of  a  numerous  people.":]: 

*  Acts  vii.  27.  f  Diviue  Legation  of  Moses,  B.  4.  ^  6. 

X  The  knowledge  of  Moses,  however,  was  not  limited  to  subjects  con- 
nected with  government  and  law.  He  was  "  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of 
Egypt."  He  was  master  of  her  science  as  well  as  of  her  statesmanship.  A 
remarkable  proof  of  this  we  have  in  the  history  of  the  golden  calf.  The 
narrative  states,  that  he  burnt  it  in  the  fire,  ground  it  to  powder,  and  made 
the  children  of  Israel  drink  of  the  dust.  "  The  manner  in  which  this  was 
done  is  a  proof  of  the  extraordinary  skill  in  the  metallugric  arts  possessed  by 
the  Egyptians  ;  and,  through  their  instruction,  by  the  Hebrews.  Modern 
chemistry  employs  tartaric  acid,  and  reduces  gold  to  powder.  Stahl,  one  of 
the  ablest  chemists,  informs  us  that  natron,  which  is  very  common  in  the 
east,  will  produce  the  same  effect ;  and,  if  the  metal  be  previously  heated, 
the  effect  is  sooner  produced.  Hence  Moses,  in  the  first  instance,  cast  the 
image  into  the  fire,  and  then  made  it  potable.  Now  one  of  two  conse 
quences  must  follow ;  either  he  performed  a  miracle,  or  he  possessed  very 
extensive  scientific  attainments.  There  is  no  account  of  any  miraculous 
intervention  of  providence  in  the  story ;  it  then  was  the  result  of  natural 
means,  but  such  as  none  but  a  very  well  informed  chemist  could  have  known 
or  used.  No  alternative,  then,  is  left  us,  but  a  positive  denial  of  the  facts, 
or  an  admission  of  the  knowledge  of  Moses.  *  *  *  *  There  is  another 
small  item  of  evidence  here,  to  establish  the  fact  of  Moses's  knowledge.  He 
strewed  the  gold  dust  on  water,  and  made  the  children  of  Israel  drink  of  it. 
He  was  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  scientific  efiect  of  what  he  had  done. 
He  meant  to  aggravate  the  punishment,  and  impress  upon  their  recollections 
the  never  to  be  forgotten  memory  of  their  disobedience,  and  to  this  latter 
end,  he  made  their  own  sense  of  taste  to  minister ;  for  of  all  detestable 
drinks,  none  is  more  so  than  that  of  gold  thus  rendered  Tpot&hle."— Hawks 
on  the  Monuments  o/Egyyt,  pp.  270,  271. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    IIEBKEWS-  129 

An  intelligent  infidel  writer  has  borne  eloquent  teiitimony 
to  the  high  intellectual  qualities  of  the  Hebrew  sage.  "The 
Jewish  law,"  observes  Rousseau,*  "  is  a  standing  proof  of  the 
superior  genius  of  the  great  man,  by  whom  it  was  dictated  ; 
and  though  the  vanity  of  philosophy  and  the  blind  prejudice 
of  party  see  nothing  in  his  character  but  a  fortunate  impos- 
tor, the  true  jjolitician  admires,  in  his  institutions,  that  saga- 
cions  and  comprehensive  power  of  mind,  which  must  ever 
lay  the  lasting  foundation  of  human  establishments."  Bossuetf 
also,  an  authority  of  another  order,  after  saying  that  the  Jew- 
ish lawgiver  was  instructed  in  all  the  wisdom,  human  and 
divine,  with  which  a  great  and  noble  genius  could  be  adorned, 
adds  the  following  observations :  "  Inspiration  only  carried 
to  the  highest  point  of  certitude  and  perfection,  that  which 
had  been  sketched  by  the  usage  and  the  knowledge  of  the 
sagest  of  empires."  Moses  unquestionably  belonged  to  that  ' 
distinguished  few,  of  whom  Bolingbroke:}:  has  observed,  that 
it  has  pleased  the  author  of  nature  to  mingle  them,  from  time 
to  time,  at  distant  intervals,  among  the  societies  of  men,  to 
maintain  the  moral  system  of  the  universe  at  a  certain  point, 
though,  doubtless,  far  below  that  of  ideal  perfection. 

A  natural  explanation  of  the  high  intellectual  develop- 
ment of  Moses  is  afforded  by  the  narrative  of  his  early  life. 
Adopted  as  her  own  son  by  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh,  the 
young  Hebrew  grew  up  in  the  midst  of  the  wisest  spirits  of 
the  nation.  Endowed  with  a  quick  and  penetrating  genius, 
he  readily  mastered  whatever  of  science  and  learning  consti- 
tuted the  civilization  of  Egypt.  Second  in  rank  only  to  the 
reigning  sovereign,  and  born  to  mould,  direct,  and  govern  his 
fellow  men,  there  cannot  be  a  doubt,  that  he  was  called  to 
important  public  trusts  before  prudence  dictated  his  retire- 
ment from  the  Egyptian  court ;  and  that,  in  discharging  these 
trusts,   he   gained  a  familiar   acquaintance    with    practical 

*  Social  Contract,  B.  2,  c.  7.  f  Discours  sur  I'Histoire  UniverseHe. 

X  Cited  by  Adams  iu  his  Defence  of  American  Constitutioas. 
9 


130  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

Statesmanship.  Later  in  life,  while  keeping  the  flocks  of  his 
father-in-law  Jethro,  he  had  ample  opportunity  for  perfecting 
his  knowledge  by  meditation,  in  the  valleys  of  Horeb  and 
Sinai,  and  along  the  shores  of  the  Eed  Sea.  Solitude,  the  ob- 
servation of  nature,  and  continual  communion  with  God  and 
his  own  thoughts,  carried  his  enthusiasm  to  the  highest  pitch, 
and  impressed  upon  his  imagination  that  strong  poetic  tinc- 
ture, which  was  reflected  in  his  whole  life.  The  burning 
bush  of  Horeb  was  a  fit  emblem  of  that  inner  flame  of 
mingled  patriotism  and  piety,  which  penetrated  and  irradia- 
ted all  the  faculties  of  his  soul. 

The  soundness  of  Moses's  judgment  was  evinced,  as  on  va- 
rious other  occasions,  so  especially  in  the  admirable  measures 
which  he  employed  to  quell  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  to  soothe 
the  agitations  of  the  multitude,  and  to  reconcile  the  people  to 
the  elevation  of  Aaron  to  the  priesthood.* 

The  promptness  with  which  Moses  decided,  and  the  energy 
with  which  he  put  his  determinations  into  execution,  are  fear- 
fully illustrated  in  the  course  which  he  pursued,  when,  on 
descending  from  the  Mount,  he  found  that  the  people  had 
made  a  golden  calf,  with  the  design  of  returning  to  Egypt 
under  its  conduct.  Having  burnt  the  idol  in  the  fire,  ground 
it  to  powder,  strewed  it  upon  the  water,  and  caused  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  to  drink  of  it,  in  derision  of  its  divinity,  he 
took  his  station  in  the  gate  of  the  camp,  and  cried  : — "Who 
is  on  Jehovah's  side?  To  me  !"  The  sons  of  Levi  promptly 
answered  to  the  challenge,  and  were  ordered  to  go  in  and  out 
from  gate  to  gate  throughout  the  camp,  and  to  slay  every 
man  his  brother,  and  every  man  his  companion,  and  every 
man  his  neighbor.  The  order  was  faithfully  executed,  and 
there  fell  of  the  people  that  day  about  three  thousand  souls.t 
This  salutary  severity  had  the  desired  effect.  The  murmurs 
of  the  people  were  thoroughly  allayed,  and  all  thought  ot 
going  back  to  Egypt  v  as  for  the  time  laid  aside.  How  finely 
*  Num.  xvi.  t  Ex.  xxxii.  26-29. 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  131 

do  the  strength  and  ardor  of  Moses's  patriotism  shine  out  in 
the  sequel  of  this  very  history  !  No  sooner  is  the  needful 
work  of  punishment  ended,  than  we  find  this  devoted  lover 
of  his  country  returning  to  Jehovah,  and  giving  vent  to  the 
deep  and  agonized  emotions  of  his  soul :  "  O,  this  people 
have  sinned  a  great  sin,  and  have  made  them  gods  of  gold  ; 
vet  now,  if  thou  wilt,  forgive  their  sin  ;  and  if  not,  blot  me, 
I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book."*  Most  truly  has  it  been  said,! 
that  there  is  nothing  in  all  the  scriptures  more  calmly  majes- 
tic than  the  divine  reply :  "  Whosoever  hath  sinned  against 
me,  him  will  I  blot  out  of  my  book. "J 

In  the  same  passage,  in  which  St.  Stephen  attests  the  wis- 
dom of  Moses,  he  says,  that  he  was  "  mighty  in  words  and  in 
deeds. "§  Here  we  have  a  clear  testimony  to  the  eminence  of 
Moses  in  eloquence.  When  Moses  received  his  commission 
to  become  the  leader  of  his  countrymen,  he  did  undoubtedly 
excuse  himself  on  the  ground,  that  he  was  not  eloquent. || 
This  plea  might  have  been  based  upon  some  impediment  in 
his  speech ;  but  it  is  more  probable,  that  it  proceeded  from  a 
modest  diffidence,  which  is  so  often  the  attendant  of  true 
merit.  However  this  may  have  been,  there  is  reason  to  be- 
lieve. That  the  impediments,  of  whatever  sort  they  were,  were 
gradually  overcome,  and  that  Moses  became  as  eminent  in 
oratory,  as  he  was  in  all  the  other  great  and  commanding 
qualities  of  a  civil  leader.  Certainly  he  had  the  mental  gifts, 
which  eloquence  requires,  for  he  was  a  poet,  and  dealt  in  the 
living  images  and  j^assionate  sentiments,  which  fire  the  hearts 
of  congregated  thousands.*!" 

Along  with  a  powerful  understanding  to  plan,  and  an  in- 
flexible will  to  adhere  to  his  resolves,  Moses  possessed  a 
mighty  heart  to  bear  him  through  an  entei:prize,  the  most  dif- 
ficult, perhaps,  ever  undertaken  by  man.  To  present  in  de- 
tail the  proofs  of  his  magnanimity  and  freedom  from  persona. 

*  Ex.  xxxii.  31,  32.      f  Ch.  Exam,  for  Sept.  1836.      J  Ex.  xxxii.  33. 

§  Acts  vii.  27.       H  Ex.  iv.  10.       f  Ch.  Exam,  for  Sept.  1836. 


132  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

ambition,  would  be  to  transcribe  no  small  part  of  his  history. 
That  he  dwelt  in  a  palace,  that  he  basked  in  the  sunshine  of 
royal  favor,  that  he  was  surrounded  with  the  splendors  and 
luxuries  of  a  court,  with  perhaps  a  prospect  of  wearing  the 
diadem  himself,  and  yet  that  even  there,  in  the  midst  of  all 
that  was  flattering  to  the  pride  and  seductive  to  the  baser 
passions  of  human  nature,  his  heart  beat  in  sympathy  with 
his  country's  wrongs,  and  his  thoughts  were  all  engaged  about 
the  methods  of  its  deliverance, — these  circumstances  are  of 
themselves  a  sufficient  proof  of  moral  greatness.  Encom- 
passed by  every  species  of  allurement,  he  forgets  not,  for  a 
single  moment,  that  his  brethren  are  groaning  beneath  the 
pressure  of  a  bitter  servitude. 

IS'or  was  it  in  a  single  great  act  of  self-devotion,  such  as 
that  of  renouncing  his  brilliant  prospects  of  wealth  and  power, 
that  his  generosity  shone  out.  'No  !  It  was  the  living,  guid- 
ing, moulding  principle  of  his  w^hole  life.  And  though  he 
met  with  no  grateful  return,  though  he  heard  not  one  word  of 
thankfulness,  where  he  heard  a  million  of  complaint  and  up- 
braiding, his  spirit  of  self-saci'ifice  endured  to  the  last,  nor 
abated  a  particle  of  its  vigor.  His  post  was  not  one  that 
common  ambition  would  have  coveted.  It  brought  with  it  no 
superiority  of  comfort,  or  luxury,  or  visible  splendor.  Even 
his  dress,  Josephus  testifies,  was  that  of  a  common  man;  and 
in  all  other  respects  he  behaved  like  one  of  the  common  peo- 
ple, nor  sought  to  distinguish  himself  from  the  multitude. 
Though  his  many  shining  qualities  obtained  for  him  an 
unbounded  influence  in  the  state,  yet  never  in  a  solitary  in- 
stance, did  he  use  it  for  his  own  individual  advantage,  or  that 
of  his  family.  He  provided  no  places  of  honor,  trust,  or 
profit  for  his  children  or  his  kindred.  In  the  choice  of  a  suc- 
cessor, he  thinks  not  of  his  family  or  his  tribe,  but  of  his 
country.  Public  oflice  he  looks  upon,  not  as  a  means  of 
wealth  or  personal  gratification,  but  as  a  solemn  trust,  to  be 
executed  for  the  benefit  of  the  governed.     Merit  is  the  sole 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  133 

claim  to  magistracy,  which  he  recognizes  as  valid  ;  all  others 
are,  in  his  esteem,  lighter  than  vanity. 

Josephns*  relates,  that,  during  the  childhood  of  Moses, 
Pharaoh,  holding  him  in  his  arms,  placed  the  crown  of  Egypt 
upon  his  head.  Instantly  the  young  hero  tore  it  from  his 
temples,  cast  it  on  the  ground,  and  trod  it  beneath  his  feet. 
This  fiction, — for  it  is  probably  nothing  more  than  a  fiction, 
— is  admirably  imagined  to  set  forth,  in  vivid  colors,  one  of 
the  predominant  qualities  of  his  great  soul, — a  deep  detesta- 
tion of  that  tyranny,  which  but  too  often  accompanies  the 
possession  of  kingly  power. 

A  strong  proof  of  this  disposition  in  Moses  we  have  in  an 
incident  related  in  the  second  chapter  of  Exodus. f  Upon  a 
certain  occasion  he  saw  an  Egyptian  beating  a  Hebrew. 
With  the  impetuosity  of  a  generous  and  impulsive  nature,  he 
launched  upon  the  assailant,  and,  in  the  struggle  which 
ensued,  the  latter  was  slain.  A  close  inspection  of  the  nar- 
rative renders  it  probable,  that  this  man  was  not  a  simple 
citizen,  but  an  agent  of  the  Egyptian  tyranny ;  a  circum- 
stance, which,  if  it  does  not  justify,  serves  at  least  toj^alliate 
the  conduct  of  Moses.:}: 

A  story  of  kindred  significance  we  find  narrated  in  the 
same  chapter  of  Exodus.§  Scarcely  had  Moses,  in  his  flight 
from  Egypt,  reached  the  borders  of  Midian,  when  he  saw 
several  shepherds  chasing  some  young  women  from  a  well, 
where  they  were  watering  their  flocks.  Instantly,  without 
a  thought  of  their  number  or  his  own  danger,  he  flies  to  the 
succor  of  the  injured  and  weaker  party,  and,  single-handed, 
beats  back  the  assailants,  leaving  the  place  in  the  sole 
occupancy  of  the  young  shepherdesses. 

Such  were  all  the  instincts  of  his  nature.  Tlie  injured 
ever  found  in  him  a  ready  helper ;  the  injurer,  an  uiicom- 

*  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  L.  2.  c.  5.  f  Yv.  11,  12. 

X  Salvad  ^r's  "  Histoire  des  Institutions  de  Moise,"  Introduction. 
§  Vv.  15-17. 


134  COlSnSIENT ABIES    ON    THE 

promising  foe.     Tyranny  he  abhorred ;  while  the  just  and 
the  right  were  with  him  little  short  of  a  passion. 

Such  was  Moses,  the  illustrious  agent  employed  by  provi- 
dence to  lead  forth  the  chosen  tribes  from  the  hard  bondage 
of  Egypt  to  the  enjoyment  of  independent  and  constitutional 
government  in  the  land  of  promise.  And  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, that  all  his  great  endowments  were  not  more  than 
enough  for  the  task  to  which  he  had  been  called.  The 
Israelites  were  a  stubborn  people  ;  now  first  forming  into 
civil  society ;  greatly  licentious ;  and  the  more  so  because 
they  were  just  emerging  from  a  state  of  slavery.  Upon  all 
the  principles  of  human  calculation,  their  passage  through 
the  wilderness  w^ould  be  attended  with  unparalleled  difficul- 
ties. A  country  without  water,  without  vegetation,  without 
any  of  the  ordinary  means  of  subsistence,  was  to  be  trav- 
ersed. Powerfal  enemies  were  to  be  met  and  overcome. 
A  spirit-broken  people  was  to  be  braced  up  to  bold  and 
decisive  action ;  and  an  ungovernable  people  was  to  be 
reduced  and  brought  under  the  restraints  of  law  and  order,* 

But,  more  than  all,  and  worse  than  all,  the  many  ten 
thousands  whom  he  commanded,  were  madly  in  love  with 
the  idolatries  of  Egypt.  Hence,  on  every  little  distress, 
"  Let  us  go  back  to  Egypt,"  was  their  never-ceasing  cry.  It 
was  not  merely  the  flesh-pots, — tlie  fish,  the  cucumbers,  the 
melons,  the  leeks,  the  onions,  and  the  garlic,f — it  was  the 
spiritual  luxury  of  Egypt,  her  superstitions,  with  which 
the  people  were  so  debauched;  a  debauchery,  which  nei- 
ther gentleness  nor  severity,  neither  the  mild  beams  of 
mercy  nor  the  glittering  sword  of  vengeance,  neither  the 
blaze  of  miracle  nor  the  terrors  of  prophetic  denunciation, 
could  ever  wholly  overcome;  a  debauchery,  of  whose  malig- 
nant virus  the  nation  was  at  last  purged  only  in  the  fiery 
furnace  of  a  seventy  years'  captivity.^, 

How  much  did  the  position  of  Moses  difi*er  from  that  of 
*  Chr.  Examiner  for  Sept.,  1836.  f  Num.  xi.  5. 


LAWS    or   THE   ANCIENT   HEBEEWS.  135 

all  other  legislators  !*  Lycurgus,  Draco,  Solon,  and  Numa, 
in  the  midst  of  men  already  in  subjection  to  laws  and  pos- 
sessed of  a  country,  are  borne,  as  it  were,  by  the  ordinary 
current  of  events,  to  their  elevated  functions.  Zaleucus, 
Pythagoras,  Zoroaster  and  Confucius,  peacefully  dictate  sage 
maxims  to  their  fellow  citizens.  Even  Mahomet,  after 
fifteen  years  meditation  in  solitude,  presents  a  modified  code 
to  people  already  living  under  established  laws.  But  Moses, 
after  a  forty  years'  absence,  re-enters  Egypt,  a  stranger  to  his 
own  countrymen,  and  without  any  the  least  physical  force  at 
his  command.  The  people,  whom  he  is  to  form  into  a 
nation,  are  without  a  country.  Before  he  can  propose  to 
them  a  system  of  laws,  it  will  be  necessary  to  conquer  a 
country.  It  wall  be  necessary  to  conquer  their  oppressors. 
It  wall  be  necessary  to  conquer  themselves ;  to  conquer  the 
deep  depression  that  has  seized  upon  their  spirits  ;  to  tilumph 
over  a  frightful  crowd  of  opposing  circumstances. 

Insurmountable,  to  human  apprehension,  are  the  difiiculties 
which  surround  the  Hebrew  lawgiver  ;  and  the  most  fearful 
of  them  are  those  which  he  has  to  contend  Math  in  his  own 
countrymen.  There  is  neither  union  nor  confidence  among 
them.  There  is  neither  courage  nor  self-respect.  Long 
centuries  of  slavery  and  misery  have  extinguished  such 
sentiments.  From  this  j^eople  he  can  expect  nothing.  Yet 
without  this  people  he  can  do  nothing.  What  remains  to 
him  ?  Before  he  gives  them  freedom,  he  must  make  them 
capable  of  freedom.  lie  must  restore  to  them  those  elements 
of  humanity  which  they  have  lost.  lie  must  give  back  to 
them  the  qualities  which  a  long  barbarism  has  smothered. 
He  must  rekindle  in  them  hope,  courage,  generv^sity,  self- 
respect,  and  enthusiasm.  With  noble  bearing  did  our 
intrepid  chief  meet  and   conquer  every  difficulty.     Dying, 

*  See  on  the  subject  of  this  and  the  following  paragraph  a  tract  by 
Schiller  on  the  Mission  of  Moses.  It  is  rationalistic  in  its  tone  but  con- 
tains many  excellent  reflections. 


136  COMMENTAKIKS    ON    THE 

lie  bequeatlied  to  liis  countryinen  a  constitution  of  govern- 
ment and  a  body  of  laws,  embracing  mo.st  of  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  political  wisdom,  and  entitled  to  be  regarded  in  its 
leading  featm-es  as  a  model  of  free  institutions  for  all  after 
ages. 

At  the  advanced  age  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  years, 
while  yet  his  eye  was  not  dim,  nor  his  natural  strength 
abated,  Moses  paid  the  common  debt  of  nature,  and  was 
gathered  to  his  fathers.  More  than  thirty  centuries  have 
since  fullilled  their  cycles,  and  are  numbered  with  the  years 
before  the  flood.  Yet  the  influence  of  his  genius  and 
writings  survives,  as  vigorous  and  benign  in  its  action  at 
the  present  moment,  as  when  his  compatriots  felt  the  first 
gush  of  grief  at  his  irreparable  loss.  To  whom  else  of  all 
the  illustrious  dead  has  such  a  thing  happened?  What 
otlier  legislator  of  ancient  times  is  still  exerting  any  consi- 
derable influence  in  the  world?  What  philosopher,  what 
statesman,  of  antitpiity,  can  boast  a  single  disciple  now? 
What  other  voice  comes  down  to  us  v/ith  equal  power  over 
the  stormy  waves  of  time  ?  Though  the  daily  sacrifice  has 
ceased,  and  the  distinction  of  the  tribes  is  lost ;  though  the 
temple  has  not  left  one  stone  upon  another,  and  the  altar 
fires  have  been  extinguished  for  ages,  yet  wherever  a  Jew 
is  found, — and  he  is  found  wherever  the  foot  of  an  adven- 
turer treads, — he  is  a  living  monument  of  the  power,  which 
the  great  Hebrew  statesman  still  has  over  the  minds  and 
hearts  of  his  countrymen.* 

Nor  this  alone.  The  whole  civilized  world  lias  felt,  and 
feels,  and  to  the  end  of  time  will  continue  to  feel,  the 
quickening  power  of  his  genius  and  example.  Who  knows 
not,  and,  knowing,  owns  not,  tlie  obligations  of  mankind  to 
Ins  ins])ired  writings  for  their  silent,  but  mighty  influence, 
in  promoting  science,  taste,  and  literature ;  in  ])urifying  the 
social  institutions ;  in  destroying  the  cruel  and  debasing 
*  Chrlsliau  K.vaminor  for  Sept.,  183G. 


LAWS  OF  THE  AKCIENT  HEBREWS  137 

superstitions  of  paganism  ;  in  enlarging  the  domain  of  civil 
liberty ;  in  securing  the  rights  of  conscience ;  in  invigorating 
both  public  and  private  morals  ;  in  allaying  and  rooting  out 
abuses  of  government;  in  giving  a  healthful  tone  to  legisla- 
tion ;  and  in  infusing  the  purest,  the  most  elevating,  and  the 
most  conservative  elements  into  human  civilization.  Of  all 
the  great  men,  who  have  played  their  part  on  the  broad 
theatre  of  human  action,  Moses  is  the  one,  who  has  exerted 
the  most  pregnant  influence  on  the  destinies  of  mankind, 
and  on  the  direction  and  progress  of  civilization.  His  lofty 
intellect,  his  greatness  of  soul,  his  preeminent  virtue,  and 
his  unequalled  services  in  tlie  cause  of  true  religion  and  of 
republican  constitutional  liberty,  place  him  at  the  head  of 
those  illustrious  benefactors  of  mankind,  who  here  and  there, 
though  at  intervals  too  distant  from  each  other,  embellish 
the  canvass  of  history. 

It  is  sometimes  alleged,  that  Moses  borrowed  his  institu- 
tions from  Egypt.  This  is  said  for  the  purpose  of  derogating 
from  his  merit  as  a  lawgiver,  and  especially  from  his  repu- 
tation as  an  inspired  lawgiver.  But  from  what  fountain  did 
Egypt  herself,  in  all  likelihood,  draw  her  best  principles  of 
law  ?  There  is  a  common  fact  in  the  history  of  the  Hebrews 
and  the  Egyptians,  hitherto  so  much  overlooked,  that  I  do 
not  remember  to  have  seen  it  adverted  to  by  any  writer, 
which,  nevertheless,  sheds  an  important  light  on  this  sub- 
ject. By  an  extraordinary  concurrence  of  circumstances,  an 
Israelite,  some  centuries  prior  to  the  age  of  Moses,  had  been 
raised  to  the  primacy  of  Egypt.  For  eighty  successive  years 
Joseph  swayed  the  destinies  of  that  empire ;  and  an  inspired 
writer  has  told  us,  that  he  taught  her  senators  wisdom.*  It 
cannot  be  doubted,  therefore,  that  many  of  the  wisest 
maxims  of  Egyptian  policy  were  due  to  the  genius  of  that 
illustrious  minister,  and  to  the  special  divine  guidance 
vouchsafed  to  him  in  his  administration. 
*  Psalm  cv.  22. 


138  COMMENT AlilES    ON    THE 

But  suppose  it  to  be  true,  tliat  some,  or  many,  of  tlie  civil 
laws  of  Egypt  were  embodied  in  the  Hebrew  code,  what 
inference,  derogatory  either  to  the  genius  or  the  inspiration  of 
Moses,  woukl  such  a  fact  warrant  ?  Did  any  body  ever  sup- 
pose it  detracted  from  the  merit  of  the  Roman  jurisprudence, 
that  the  twelve  tables  were  framed  by  a  commission,  which 
had  been  appointed  by  the  senate  to  examine  the  laws  of 
other  nations  ?  And  how  would  such  a  fact  militate  against 
the  inspiration  of  the  lawgiver  ?  The  spirit  of  God  might  as 
well  prompt  him  to  take  from  the  legislation  of  a  foreign 
state  that  which  was  valuable,  and  witli  which  he  and  his 
people  were  already  acquainted,  as  to  dictate  laws  entirely 
new,  and  till  then  unknown.  The  former  is  as  natural  and 
legitimate  a  j)rovince  of  inspiration  as  the  latter.  Besides : 
Let  all  that  is  alleged  be  granted ;  it  still  remains  true,  that, 
in  their  fundamental  principles,  the  two  constitutions  were 
the  antipodes  of  each  other.  ^gJY>t  was  a  despotism ;  Judea 
a  republic.  The  people  of  the  former  were  slaves;  the 
people  of  the  latter,  freemen.  In  Egypt  the  prince  governed, 
or  the  priesthood  tlirough  the  prince ;  in  Palestine  the 
nation.  The  Egyptian  government  was  founded  on  force ; 
the  Hebrew  government  on  consent.  The  former  was  a 
government  of  will ;  the  latter,  a  government  of  law.  In 
Egypt  an  iron  system  of  caste  crushed  every  opening  faculty 
and  everj^  generous  aspiration  of  man's  nature ;  on  the 
banner  of  Palestine  flamed,  in  living  letters,  liberty,  equality, 
fraternity. 

Be  it  that  the  institutions  and  manners  of  his  age  exacted 
their  tribute  from  the  Jewish  lawgiver  in  modifying  his 
system  of  legislation.  It  is  what  I  have  admitted  and  even 
contended  for  in  the  preceding  chapter.  Still,  the  results 
which  he  achieved,  are  none  the  less  great ;  none  the  less 
original ;  none  the  less  stupendous.  The  greatness  of  Egypt, 
far  from  diminishing,  serves  only  to  enhance  the  real  glory 
of  his  labors.     Egypt  has  fallen  ;    and  the  roost  learned 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  139 

-esearches  have  liitlierto  shed  but  a  feeble  light  on  her  civi- 
lization. But  Moses  lived  ;  and  his  name  and  works  are 
known  and  honored  among  all  nations.  Tliougli  neither 
brass  nor  marble  has  preserved  to  us  the  shape  and  stature 
of  his  outer  man,  the  finer  elements  of  his  soul,  the  form  and 
lineaments  of  his  inner  being,  stand  revealed  to  us,  in  all 
their  fair  j^roportions,  in  the  monuments  which  his  genius 
has  left  behind  him.  Though  his  body  has  long  since  been 
mingled  with  its  kindred  dust,  yet  all  of  him,  as  Tacitus  has 
elegantly  said  of  Agricola,  all  of  him,  which  gained  the  love 
and  admiration  of  his  cotemporaries,  still  subsists,  and  will 
for  ever  subsist,  preserved  in  the  minds  of  men,  the  register 
of  ages,  and  the  records  of  fame.  Even  the  pyramids  have 
not  availed  to  preserve  the  Pharaohs  from  forgetfulness. 
Those  proud  monarchs  have  sunk  to  the  common  lot  of 
oblivion,  inglorious  and  unremembered.  But  Moses,  by  his 
worthy  deeds  and  his  immortal  writings,  has  triumphed  over 
the  injuries  of  time. 


CHAPTER    ni. 

Uncertainty  of  early  Profane  History. 

The  credibility  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  those  of  Moses  in  particular,  has  been  called  in  question, 
on  the  ground,  that  they  contain  statements  at  variance  with 
the  historical  records  of  the  learned  heathen  nations  of  anti- 
quity. Thus  the  pretence  of  ancient  history  is  made  a  plea 
for  infidelity  ;  and  by  many  no  argument  against  revelation  is 
thought  more  plausible  than  its  contrariety  to  some  of  the 
averments  of  early  profane  story.  How  little  force  there  is  in 
this  argument  will  appear  in  the  present  chapter,  the  purpose 
of  which  is  to  show,  that  there  is  no  certain  credibility  in 
those  ancient  histories,  which  contradict  the  Bible.  This 
chapter  will  be  followed  by  another,  whose  aim  will  be  to 
prove  that  all  the  marks  of  historical  truth  are  found  in  the 
record  of  Moses.  In  this  endeavor  T  must  gratefully  acknow- 
ledge my  indebtedness  to  the  learned  industry  of  Bishop 
Stillingfleet,  to  whose  admirable  Origines  Sacras,  I  would  I'e- 
fer  those  persons,  who  desire  to  see  the  argument  presented  in 
all  its  breadth  and  strength. 

It  is  related  of  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  who  added  to  the  graces 
of  a  courtier  and  the  bravery  of  a  hero  the  higher  accomplish- 
ments of  a  learned  historian,  that,  in  despair  of  arriving  at 
the  truth  of  an  event,  which  happened  under  his  own  window, 
he  committed  to  the  flames  some  of  his  most  valuable  manu- 
scripts on  historical  subjects.     It  is  but  a  few  years  ago,  that 


I 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  141 

an  important  appropriation  bill  was  lost  in  the  expiring  throes 
of  an  annual  session  of  the  American  congress.  On  the  re- 
assembling of  that  body  the  following  year,  gentlemen  of 
undoubted  probity  and  honor  gave  such  conflicting  accounts 
of  the  caus.es  of  the  failure  of  the  bill,  as  were,  in  no  small 
degree,  calculated  to  impair  our  confidence  in  the  general 
credibility  of  human  testimony.  The  writer  retains  a  vivid 
recollection  of  the  painful  emotions  and  reflections,  which  that 
event  excited  in  his  mind.  It  brought  forcibly  to  remem 
brance  the  observation  which  Addison  puts  into  the  mouth 
of  Sir  Koger  de  Coverly,  in  the  Spectator,  that  it  is  not  mere- 
ly that  on  most  questions  much  may  be  said  on  both  sides, 
but  that  the  real  obscurities  on  many  subjects  of  an  historical 
character  are  such  as  to  pain  and  perplex  every  honest  in- 
quirer. 

Who  wrote  Junius  ?  Who  discovered  the  differential 
calculus?  Who  killed  Tecumseh  ?  Who  commanded  the 
American  forces  at  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill?  Who  was  the 
hero  of  lake  Erie?  On  what  day  were  the  signatures  affixed 
to  the  declaration  of  American  Independence?  What  was 
the  original  policy  of  the  American  cabinet  in  reference  to 
the  employment  of  our  public  ships  in  the  last  war  with  Great 
Britain  ?  Did  Kapoleon  poison  his  sick  soldiers  at  JaflPa  ? 
Was  the  beautiful  Mary,  perishing  on  the  scaffold  under  the 
insatiate  envy  of  her  virgin  rival,  guilty  or  innocent?  These, 
and  a  thousand  other  questions,  are  still  unadjudicated  in  the 
great  court  of  modern  history. 

How,  then,  can  we  hope  to  penetrate  the  abyss  of  time,  and 
bring  forth  to  the  light  the  mysteries,  which  lie  concealed, 
v/ithin  its  profound  recesses?  We  look  back  upon  the  con- 
fused traditions  of  the  first  ages  of  the  world,  as  upon  some 
distant  ocean ;  but  shadows,  clouds,  and  darkness  brood  over 
its  troubled  surface ;  and  if  an  occasional  glimmer  of  trutli 
appear,  it  is  but  a  rush-light,  too  feeble  to  reveal  to  us  events 
in  their  true  relations  to  each  other.     In  all  that  relates  to  the 


143  COMMENTARIES  ON  THE 

birtli  anil  infancy  of  our  race,  its  social  relations,  its  progress 
in  art  and  learning,  and  the  achievements  and  monuments  of 
genius,  in  those  distant  ages,  profane  history  is  either  a  total 
blank,  or  so  obscured  in  the  exaggerated  imagery  of  epic 
poetry  and  the  wild  and  dreamy  myths  of  gods  and  demi- 
gods, as  to  be  no  better  than  a  mere  ignis  fatuus  in  direct- 
ing our  steps  in  the  search  after  historical  truth. 

There  is,  then,  no  ground  of  assent  to  any  ancient  histories, 
which  give  an  account  of  things  different  from  that  contained 
in  the  Bible.  The  truth  of  this  proposition  will  be  proved  by 
three  arguments :  First,  from  the  obvious  inability  of  these 
histories  to  give  an  authentic  account  of  the  earliest  transac- 
tions of  mankind.  Secondly,  from  the  confusion  and  ambi- 
guity of  the  accounts,  which  they  profess  to  give.  And 
thirdly,  from  the  manifest  partiality  of  -the  historians  to  their 
respective  countries,  and  their  manifest  inconsistency  with 
each  other.* 

The  first  general  argument  is  drawn  from  the  plain  inabil- 
ity of  any  ancient  history  to  afford  a  creditable  narrative  of 
the  first  ages  of  the  world.  If  this  point  be  established,  it 
will  of  itself  demonstrate  the  incompetency  of  those  records  to 
overthrow  or  invalidate  the  facts  of  sacred  history.  The  in- 
ability or  defect,  here  referred  to,  is  twofold.  It  is  both 
general  and  special ;  general,  in  so  far  as  it  is  common  to  all 
ancient  histories;  special,  in  so  far  as  it  is  peculiar  to  the 
history  of  each  of  the  several  nations,  whose  pretensions  aro 
highest  on  the  score  of  antiquity. 

The  general  defect,  the  defect  common  to  the  history  of  all 
ancient  nations,  is  the  want  of  authentic  early  records.  If  a 
nation  has  no  certain  mode  of  preserving  its  traditions,  if  it 
has  no  permanent  and  safe  depository  of  historical  truth,  and 
if,  in  addition  to  this  deficiency,  its  people  are  subjected  to 
the  necessity  of  constant  bodily  labor,  and  of  frequent  re- 
movals from  one  place  to  another,  it  is  clear  that  lapse  of  time 
*  Stillingfleet's  Origincs  Sacrie,  Book  1,  Chap.  1. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  143 

will  introduce  many  corruptions  into  its  liistorj.  This  may 
happen,  nay  must  happen,  through  the  imperfection  of  men's 
memory,  through  the  ignorance  and  barbarism  of  rude  ages, 
and  still  more,  perhaps,  through  the  dishonesty  of  those,  whose 
interest  lies  in  a  deviation  from  the  original  tradition. 

The  above  is  undoubtedly  a  true  description  of  the  state  oi 
most  ancient  nations  in  their  infancy.  Their  poverty  laid 
them  under  the  necessity  of  incessant  physical  toil ;  and  their 
ignorance  of  the  true  principles  of  agricultural  science,  and 
the  best  modes  of  agricultural  practice,  led  to  the  adoption  of 
a  wandering  manner  of  life.  The  conflict  with  want  and  ne- 
cessity was  unceasing.  Men  had  neither  the  leisure  nor  the 
opportunity  to  cultivate  arts  and  sciences.  But  M'ithout  these, 
the  memory  of  their  former  state  must  gradually  fade  away, 
and  at  length  be  lost  in  mere  fable.  And  this,  in  fact,  was 
the  case  with  most  of  the  earliest  nations.  A  sufficient  proof 
of  this  is  the  silly  fiction,  not  uncommon  with  ancient  tribes, 
that  they  sprang  from  the  soil,  on  which  they  lived.  What 
credible  account  of  the  first  ages  can  be  looked  for  from  na- 
tions, so  defective  in  the  knowledge  of  their  own  origin  ? 

A  consideration  of  the  several  methods,  employed  by  man- 
kind, for  conveying  knowledge  to  one  another,  will  still 
farther  evince  the  want  of  permanent  historical  records  of  an 
early  date.  These  methods  are  chiefly  three :  words,  sym- 
bols, and  letters. 

Spoken  words  were  undoubtedly  the  earliest  means  in  use 
of  communicating  ideas.  But  words  are  of  so  evanescent  a 
nature,  men's  memories  are  so  treacherous,  and  their  minds 
are  so  clouded  by  ignorance,  prejudice,  and  interest,  that  noth- 
ing can  be  more  uncertain  than  the  reports  of  oral  tradition. 

The  second  method  of  conveying  knowledge  was  by  means 
of  representative  symbols.  Such  were  the  Egyptian  hiero- 
glj'phics,  which  were,  partly  at  least,  of  a  symbolical  nature. 
The  defectiveness  of  hieroglyphics  as  an  instrument  of  com- 
municating knowledge,  may  be  inferred  from  the  following 


144  COMIVIENTARIES    ON   THE 

circumstances:  1.  Tlie  time  and  labor  necessarily  consumed 
in  the  invention  of  them.  2.  Their  obscurity  and  ambiguity, 
after  they  had  been  invented.  3.  Their  limited  extent,  as  com- 
pared with  the  whole  field  of  liuman  thought  and  knowledge. 
And  4.  The  fact  that  the  use  of  them  must  have  been  confined 
to  the  fevored  few,  who  had  leisure  and  ability  to  master  their 
occult  significations  and  refined  mysteries.  The  variety  of 
interpretations,  to  which  they  were  liable,  and  their  conse- 
cj^uent  uncertainty,  are  aptly  illustrated  in  the  dificrent  opin- 
ions of  the  ancients  as  to  the  meaning  of  a  golden  hicrogly- 
p]>ic,  consisting  of  two  dogs,  a  hawk  and  an  ibis.  Some 
understood  the  dogs  to  represent  the  two  hemispheres;  others, 
the  two  tropics.  By  some  the  hawk  was  supposed  to  signify 
the  sun  ;  by  others  the  equinoctial.  By  the  ibis  some  thought 
the  moon  to  be  intended  ;  others,  the  zodiac.  And  if,  as  modern 
researches  have  shown,  hieroglyphics  were  representatives 
sometimes  of  ideas,  and  sometimes  of  sounds  alone,  this  is  a 
new  source  of  perplexity.  It  makes  the  language  which  tliey 
speak  still  more  ambiguous,  and  increases  the  confusion  and 
uncertainty  of  their  reports. 

From  the  imperfection  of  the  foregoing  methods  of  commu 
iiicating  ideas,  it  is  evident,  that,  before  there  can  exist  any 
certain  medium  of  conveying  the  knowledge  of  past  to  coming 
ages,  some  way  must  be  found  out,  whereby,  as  has  been 
aptly  said,*  men's  voices  may  be  seen,  and  their  fingers  made 
to  speak.  This  can  be  done  only  by  means  of  a  phonic  alpha- 
bet ;  that  is,  by  the  invention  of  certain  characters,  which 
shall  represent  all  the  articulate  sounds  of  the  human  voice, 
employed  in  spoken  language.  Well  has  Galileo  called  this 
important  discovery  ''  admirandarum  omnium  inventionuni 
humanarum  signaculum,"  the  masterpiece  of  all  the  wonder 
ful  inventions  of  human  genius.  If  there  were  no  other  jM'oof 
of  the  obscurity  and  deficiency  of  ancient  history  than  the  un- 
certainty as  to  the  inventor  of  letters, — the  only  efiectual  mode 
*  Stillingfleet's  Origines  Bacrx,  B.  1,  C.  1. 


^  LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  145 

of  preserving  and  transmitting  knowledge,  that  alone  would 
be  a  demonstration  of  it.  There  was  hardly  an  ancient  na- 
tion of  any  note,  which  did  not  put  in  its  claim  to  this  honor. 
Che  Jews  attributed  the  invention  of  letters  to  Adam,  or 
Moses;  the  Egyptians,  to  Hermes  ;  the  Phenicians  to  Taautus  ; 
the  Greeks,  to  Cadmus  ;  and  the  Romans,  to  Saturn. 

So  much  for  the  general  deficiency  of  ancient  histories, — 
the  want  of  permanent  and  authentic  early  records  for  the 
perpetuation  of  historical  truth.  Let  us  proceed  now  to  a 
closer  study  of  the  particular  histories  of  the  several  nations, 
which  enjoy  the  most  distinguished  reputation  both  for  an- 
tiquity and  learning.  Tliere  are  four  of  these, — the  Pheni- 
cians, the  Egyptians,  the  Chaldeans,  and  the  Greeks.  It  is 
proposed  to  inquire  into  the  credibility  of  their  early  records, 
as  also  into  the  ages  of  their  most  distinguished  historians. 

We  vrill  begin  with  the  history  of  the  Phenicians.  The 
most  celebrated  historian  of  this  people  was  Sanchoniathon. 
His  history  of  Phenicia,  in  nine  books,  w^as  translated  into 
Greek  by  Philo  Biblius.  The  age  of  this  writer  is  a  question, 
which  haa  been  much  in  debate  among  chronologists.  Por- 
phyry, the  subtlest  antagonist  of  Christianity  in  the  primitive 
ages,  too  learned  to  be  satisfied  with  the  idle  pretensions  of  the 
Greek  historians,  laboriously  sought  after  the  most  ancient 
records,  that  he  might  have  something  wherewith  to  confront 
the  antiquity  of  tne  scriptures.  He  could  find  no  other  pro- 
fane author  as  old  as  the  Phenician  historian.  Yet  he  ac- 
knowledges him  posterior  to  Moses ;  and  he  even  grounds  an 
argujuent  for  the  truth  of  some  of  his  statements  on  their 
agreement  with  those  of  the  Jewish  historian.* 

When  did  this  man  flourish,  with  whom  no  other  ancient 
writer,  even  in  the  estimation  of  Porphyry,  can  vie  in  age? 
The  learned  Bochartf  makes  Sanchoniathon  cotemporary 
with  Gideon  ;  that  is,  nearly  two  hundred  years  later  than 

*  Euseb.  Praep.  Ev.  L.  10.  C.  8. 

t  Geog.  Sac.  in  Stillingfleet,    Book  1,  Chap.  2. 
10 


146  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

M(>ses,  and  only  sixty-five  years  before  the  destruction  of 
Tr(>y.  Scaliger*  and  Stillingfleet,f  with  greater  reason, 
bring  liim  still  lower  down,  even  to  the  time  of  Solomon,  or 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  destruction  of  Troy. 
This  opinion  is  founded  mainly  on  the  fact,  that  Sanchoni- 
athon  speaks  of  the  building  of  Tyre  as  an  ancient  event ; 
but,  by  general  consent,  this  event  happened  about  the 
time  of  Gideon. 

Having  thus,  as  far  as  we  are  able,  cleared  the  age  of 
Sanchoniathon,  let  us  inquire  into  iiis  credibility  as  an  his- 
torian. He  professes  to  have  drawn  his  history  from  tliree 
sources: — the  records  of  Jerombaal,  priest  of  the  god  Jao; 
the  annals  of  the  several  cities  ;  and  the  sacred  inscriptions 
in  the  temples.:}:  Who  this  Jerombaal  was,  is  a  vexed 
question  among  the  learned.  Bochart  conjectures,  that  he 
was  the  same  as  Gideon,  both  because  the  latter  is  called  in 
scripture  Jerubbaal,  and  because  soon  after  the  death  of 
Gideon  the  Israelites  worshipped  Baal-berith,  by  which  he 
thinks  is  probably  meant  the  idol  of  Berith,  or  Berytus,  the 
place  where  Sanchoniathon  lived.  Porphyry  commends 
Sanchoniathon  for  his  fidelity.  Philo,  his  translator,  styles 
him  a  learned  and  inquisitive  man.  Theodoret  thinks  his 
name  signifies  a  lover  of  truth.  § 

Of  his  fidelity  we  have  no  means  of  judging,  since  the 
records  are  lost,  out  of  which  he  professes  to  have  taken  his 
history.  But  the  fragments  of  his  writings,  still  extant,  give 
us  no  very  exalted  idea  either  of  his  love  of  truth,  or  his 
diligence  in  seeking  it.  All  that  remains  of  his  history  of 
Phenicia,  is  the  first  book,  transcribed  into  Eusebius.  Tliis 
relates  to  the  Phenician  theology.  It  is  a  confused  jumble 
of  incongruities,  absurdities,  and  fables.  Tlie  most  valuable 
thing  in  it,  and  almost  the  only  one  that  is  clear  and  con- 

*  Not.  in  Frag.  Grajc,  p.  40  in  Stillingfleet. 
f  Origines  Sacrte.     Book  1,  Chap.  2. 
t  Ibidem.  2  Ibidem. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  147 

sistent,  is  a  confession,  that  idolatry  had  its  origin  in  a 
deification,  after  death,  of  men,  who  had  performed  some 
useful  actions,  while  living.  What  can  there  be  in  such  a 
writer,  capable  of  giving  a  moment's  uneasiness  to  a  rational 
mind,  whatever  contrariety  there  may  be  between  his  state- 
ments and  those  of  sacred  story  ? 

We  proceed  now  to  the  Egyptian  history.  Stillingfieet* 
has  quaintly,  but  not  without  truth,  observed,  that  the 
Egyptians  were  a  people,  so  unreasonably  given  to  fables, 
that  the  wisest  action  they  ever  did,  was  to  conceal  their 
religion  ;  and  the  best  office  their  gods  had,  was  to  hold 
their  fingers  in  their  mouth,  to  command  silence  to  their 
worshippers.  This  nation  boasts  an  antiquity  extending 
back  to  tens  of  thousands  of  years  before  the  creation  of  the 
world.  The  thirty-one  dynasties  of  their  most  celebrated 
historian,  Manetho  Sebennyta,  embrace  a  period  of  more 
than  fifty  thousand  years. f  Let  us  a  little  sift  this  high- 
sounding  claim  of  antiquity.  Their  most  famous  historian, 
as  observed  above,  was  Manetho.  He  was  high  priest  of 
Heliopolis,  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus.  He 
flourished,  therefore,  less  than  three  hundred  years  before 
Christ.  He  composed  his  history  at  the  request  of  Phila- 
delphus ;  and,  in  an  abridged  form,  it  is  still  extant.:}: 

It  is  manifest,  that  the  credibility  of  Manetho  will  depend 
on  the  credibility  of  the  records,  which  he  used  in  compiling 
his  history.  He  professes  to  have  copied  it  from  certain 
pillars,  inscribed  before  the  flood  by  the  first  Egyptian 
Hermes,  and  afterwards  found  by  the  second  Hermes,  in  the 
land  of  Seriad.     Who  this  Hermes,  Thoyth,  or  Mercury  (for 

*  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c.  2. 

t  The  exact  number  is  53,535. 

4:  "  These  dynasties  are  yet  preserved,  being  first  epitomized  by  Julius 
Africanus,  from  him  transcribed  into  Eusebius's  Chronica,  from  Eusebius, 
by  Georgius  Syncellus,  out  of  whom  they  are  produced  by  Joseph  Scaliger, 
and  may  be  seen  both  in  his  Eusebius  and  his  Canones  Isogogici." — S  riL- 

LING  FLEET. 


148  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

he  was  called  by  tliese  several  names)  was,  is  a  question  hope- 
lessly buried  up  in  the  mists  of  ancient  allegory.  The  accounts 
respecting  him  are  so  strangely  contradictory,  that  some  have 
doubted  whether  any  such  person  ever  existed.  Cotta,  in 
Cicero  de  Natura  Deorum,  brings  forward  no  less  than  five 
Mercuries,  expressly  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  his 
academical  doctrine  of  withholding  assent.  The  Egyptians, 
according  to  Diodorus,  represent  him  to  have  been  a  sacred 
scribe  to  Osiris,  and  the  tutor  of  Isis.*  How  he  could  have 
stood  in  such  relations  to  these  personages,  and  yet  lived 
Defore  the  flood,  is  a  mystery  wdiich  they  do  not  explain,  and 
which,  without  such  explanation,  is  quite  incomprehensible. 

But  let  us  look  somewhat  more  closely  at  these  Mercurial 
pillars.  Manetho  vouches  the  credibility  of  his  history  from 
the  fact,  that  "  he  took  it  from  some  pillars  in  the  land  of 
Seriad,  on  which  they  were  inscribed  in  the  sacred  dialect 
by  the  first  Mercury,  and  after  the  flood  were  translated  out 
of  the  sacred  dialect  into  the  Greek  tongue,  in  hieroglyphic 
characters,  by  Agathodsemon,  the  second  Mercury,  the 
father  of  Taut."t 

"Would  it  be  possible  for  an  author  more  effectually  to 
blast  his  own  reputation  for  credibility,  than  Manetho  has 
done  in  this  passage  ?  For,  in  the  first  place,  where  is  this 
land  of  Seriad,  in  which  the  pillars  were  found  ?  Scaliger,:j: 
after  a  laborious  search,  acknowledges  his  inability  to  find 
its  locality.  It  is  manifestly  a  Utopian  region.  Secondly, 
what  likelihood  is  there,  that  these  pillars  could  have  with- 
stood the  rush  of  waters,  which  overthrew  the  most  solid 
edifices,  and  reduced  whole  cities  to  heaps  of  ruins  ?  Thirdly, 
how  was  it  possible  for  Hermes,  who  lived  in  the  beginning 
of  the  first  dynasty,  to  write  in  advance  the  history,  of  so 
many  thousand  years?   Fourthly,  what  other  writer  has  ever 

*  Stillingfleet,  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c.  2. 
t  Euseb.  Chron.,  in  Still.,  B.  1,  c.  2. 
J  Not.  in  Frag.  Maneth.  in  Euseb.  cited  by  Stillingfleet. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  149 

mentioned  the  co-existence  of  a  sacred  and  common  dialect 
in  Egypt  ?  There  was,  as  is  well  known,  a  difference  between 
sacred  and  common  writing;  bnt  no  trace,  elsewhere,  of  a 
difference  between  the  sacred  and  common  language.*  Fi- 
nally, what  shall  we  say  to  the  translation  of  this  history  into 
Greek  so  soon  after  the  flood  ?  Where,  and  how  did  the 
author  obtain  his  knowledge  of  Greek?  Was  the  Greek 
language  so  much  in  request  at  tliat  early  period  ?  On  the 
contrary,  is  it  not  plain,  both  from  Herodotus  and  Diodorus,t 
that  the  Greeks  were  not  allowed  any  commerce  with  the 
Egyptians,  till  the  time  of  Psalmmeticus,  which  was  as  late 
as  the  twenty-sixth  dynasty  of  Manetho,  and  more  than  a 
hundred  years  after  the  first  Olympiad  ? 

Besides,  how  can  a  writer,  of  the  age  of  Ptolemy  Phila- 
delphus,  deriving  his  knowledge  fi-om  records  manifestly 
the  most  vague  and  uncertain,  and  writing,  too,  under  cir- 
cumstances and  for  a  purpose,  as  will  presently  appear,  well 
calculated  to  throw  suspicion  upon  his  statements,  be  reas- 
onably confronted  with  Moses?:}:  Infidelity  is  welcome  to  all 
the  strength  it  can  derive  from  such  a  labor.  Nothing,  surely, 
but  a  dee})  consciousness  of  the  inherent  weakness  of  its  cause, 
could  make  it  catch  at  such  straws,  or  induce  it  to  regard  them 
as  affording  the  least  support  to  its  impious  assumptions.! 

The  Chaldean  history  next  claims  our  attention.  The 
Chaldeans  were,  without  doubt,  a  people  of  high  antiquity. 
They  were  the  first  nation,  that  was  formed  into  a  regulai 

*  Hengstenbergs  "  Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses,"  p.  244. 

t  Herod.  L.  2.  Diod.  L.  1,  0.  67. 

X  "  It  is  evident  from  what  remains  of  him  in  Eusebius's  Chronica,  that  he 
not  only  flourished  in  the  time  of  Philadelphus,  but  writ  his  history  at  the 
special  command  of  Philadelphus,  as  manifestly  appears  by  the  remaining 
epistle  of  Manetho  to  him,  still  extant  in  Eusebius." — Stillingfleet. 

§  I  have  spoken  of  Manetho,  as  if  he  were  a  true  historical  personage. 
Of  this,  however,  there  is  much  doubt.  Hengstenberg,  in  his  Books  of 
Moses,  has  argued  strongly,  and  to  most  persons  probably  convincingly,  in 
support  of  the  opinion,  that  the  whole  story  of  Manetho  is  a  mere  fixble. 


150  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

government  after  the  flood.  For  tlie  knowledge  of  this 
fact,  however,  we  are  more  indebted  to  scripture  history, 
than  to  any  undoubted  historical  records  of  their  own.  Their 
vanity  led  them  to  exaggerate  their  antiquity  to  an  extent, 
quite  equal  to  that  of  the  Egyptians.* 

Their  historian  of  highest  repute  was  Berosus.  He  was, 
as  we  learn  from  Josephus,f  a  priest  of  Belus,  and  a  native 
of  Babylon.  Having  become  an  adept  in  the  Chaldean 
learning  and  philosophy,  he  removed  to  the  Grecian  island 
of  Cos.  Here  he  opened  a  school  of  astronomy,  and  was  the 
first  to  bring  the  Chaldean  astrology  into  repute  among 
the  Greeks.:]:  Dr.  Anthon§  makes  him  contemporary  with 
Alexander.  Herein  he  is  certainly  at  fault  in  his  chronology. 
Tatian,  in  a  fragment  preserved  in  Eusebius,  informs  us,  that 
Berosus  wrote  the  Chaldean  history  in  three  books,  and 
dedicated  it  to  Antiochus,  the  third  from  Seleucus.||  This 
must  have  been  Antiochus  Theos,  whose  reign  commenced 
in  the  twenty-second  year  of  Ptolemy  Philadelj)hus.  Vos- 
sius,  from  a  passage  in  Pliny,  proves,  that  the  history  of 

*  "  Even  among  these,  who  enjoyed  all  the  advantages  of  ease,  quiet,  and 
a  flourishing  empire,  we  find  no  undoubted  or  credible  records  preserved, 
but  the  same  vanity  as  among  the  Egyptians,  in  arrogating  antiquity  to 
themselves  beyond  all  proportion  of  reason  or  satisfaction  from  their  own 
history,  to  fill  up  that  vast  measure  of  time  with  ;  which  makes  it  most  pro- 
bable what  Diodorus  (Bibliothcc.  1.  1,)  observes  of  them,  that  in  things  per- 
taining to  their  arts  they  made  use  of  lunar  years  of  thirty  days ;  so  they 
had  need,  when  Tully  (de  Divin.  1.  1,)  tells  us,  that  they  boasted  of  obser- 
vations of  the  stars  for  470,000  years.  It  had  been  impossible  for  them  to 
have  been  so  extravagant  in  their  accounts  of  themselves,  had  they  but  pre- 
served the  history  of  their  nation  in  any  certain  records." — Stillingfleet. 

f  Contra,  App.,  L.  1. 

X  The  Athenians  erected  a  statue  to  his  memory  with  a  gilded  tongue  ; 
"  A  good  emblem,"  says  Stillingfleet,  "  of  his  history,  which  made  a  fair  and 
si>ecious  show,  but  was  not  that  within,  which  it  pretended  to  be;  especially 
where  he  pretends  to  give  an  account  of  the  most  ancient  times. 

§  Class.  Diet.  Art.  Berosus. 

II  Euseb.  Prtep.  Evang.,  L.  10,  in  Still.,  B.  1,  c.  3. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIEKT   HEBREWS.  151 

Berosus  could  not  have  been  given  to  the  world  much,  if 
any,  before  the  twenty-second  year  of  Philadelphus.*  It 
was  during  the  reign  and  at  the  instance  of  the  same  prince, 
as  is  well  known,  that  Manetho,  the  Egyptian  historian, 
composed  his  history. 

This  is  a  point  of  no  little  importance  to  be  cleared,  as 
will  appear  from  the  following  considerations. 

Ptolemy  Philadelphus  was  a  great  patron  of  letters. 
Among  the  most  princely,  as  well  as  useful  instances  of  this 
patronage,  was  the  translation  which  he  caused  to  be  made 
of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews  into  the  Greek  language, 
commonly  called  the  Septuagint.  This  great  work,  as 
Yossiusf  has  shown,  was  executed  in  the  early  part  of 
Ptolemy's  reign.  In  this  opinion  of  Yossius  the  learned 
Jesuit  PetaviusJ  concurs.  Then  it  was  that  this  authentic 
history  of  the  creation  and  first  ages  of  the  world  was,  for 
the  first  time,  produced  to  the  view  of  mankind.  Such  a 
work,  containing  as  it  does,  a  narrative  of  the  peopling  of 
the  world,  the  flood,  the  confusion  of  tongues,  the  dispersion 
of  mankind,  the  formation  of  civil  societies,  the  origin  of 
idolatry,  the  selection  of  a  particular  nation  to  be  the  people 
of  the  true  God,  its  investiture  with  peculiar  privileges, 
its  admirable  system  of  civil  laws,  and  its  wondert\il  and 
miraculous  history,  such  a  work,  I  say,  it  will  readily  be 
imagined,  must  have  created  no  small  stir  among  the 
scholars  of  that  age.  The  desire  would  naturally  be 
excited,  in  the  nations  of  most  distinguished  repute  for 
learning  and  antiquity,  to  produce  somewhat  from  their  own 
annals,  with  which  they  might  confront  these  strange  and 
startling  revelations.  Then  it  was,  as  we  have  seen  above, 
that  Manetho  and  Berosus  published  their  histories  to  the 
world.  .  It  thus  appears,  that  these  two  distinguished  histo- 

•  Yoss.  de  Hist.  Graec,  1.  1,  c.  13.     Pliu.  Hist.  Nat.  1.  7,  c.  57,  in  StilL 

t  De  Hist.  Graec,  1.  1,  c.  12. 

X  Notes  on  Epiphanius,  in  Stillingfleet,  B.  1,  c.  3. 


152  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

rians  flour] shed  at  a  period  later  even  than  that  of  the  trans- 
lation of  tlie  Old  Testament  into  Greek  ;  by  which,  indeed, 
it  seems  highly  probable,  that  they  were  incited  to  put  forth 
tlieir  respecHve  relations. 

Thus  much  to  show  the  incompetency  of  the  Chaldean 
history  to  give  an  authentic  account  of  the  hrst  ages  of 
mankind.  It  cannot  be  denied,  and  there  is  certainly  no 
disposition  in  any  friend  of  divine  revelation  to  deny  that 
the  fragments  of  Berosus  in  Josephus,  Tatian,  and  Eusebius, 
are  of  considerable  value  and  importance,  not  only  as 
throwing  light  upon  the  history  of  the  Babylonish  empire, 
but  also  as  confirming  the  truth  of  tlie  scripture  history. 
All  that  is  maintained  is,  that  the  Chaldean  history  is  of  no 
such  authority  in  respect  to  ancient  times,  as  to  be  entitled 
to  credit,  when  it  comes  in  conflict  with  the  historical  state- 
ments of  holy  writ.*     I  conclude  wuth  an  observation  of 

*  A  caviller  might  object,  that  there  is  an  inconsistency  in  the  text,  which 
represents  profane  historians  as  confirming  the  truth  of  the  scripture  his- 
tory, when  the  relations  of  ths  former  accord  with  those  of  the  latter,  while 
it  affirms,  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  credit,  when  their  statements  conflict 
with  those  of  holy  writ.  But  there  is  no  real  inconsistency.  Let  us  illus- 
trate the  case  by  facts.  Diodorus  says,  that  Babylon  was  not  yet  founded, 
when  Ninus  conquered  MeS'Opotamia,  and  that  Nineveh  was  not  built,  till 
after  he  had  subdued  the  Babylonians.  The  scripture,  on  the  other  hand, 
asserts,  that  both  these  cities  were  built  centuries  before  the  events  men- 
tioned by  the  Greek  historian.  Now  all  must  feel,  that  the  authority  of 
Diodorus  on  this  point  is  as  nothing,  when  compared  to  the  authority  of 
Moses.  Again  :  From  the  4Vth  chapter  of  Genesis,  we  learn,  that  Pharaoh 
purchased  of  his  subjects  the  right  of  possession  to  their  land,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  land  of  the  priests,  which  he  bought  not ;  and  that  the  land 
was  parcelled  out  to  its  former  possessors,  who  paid  for  the  use  of  it  a  fifth 
part  of  its  yearly  produce.  Such  is  the  statement  of  Moses.  Now  for  the 
testimony  of  profane  historians.  According  to  Herodotus,  (B.  2,  c.  109,) 
the  king  divided  the  whole  land  among  the  Egyptians,  collecting  from  each 
individual  a  yearly  rent.  According  to  Diodorus,  (1.  73,)  all  the  laud  in 
Egypt  belonged  to  the  priests,  or  the  kings,  or  the  military  caste.  Accord- 
ing to  Strabo,  (17,  p.  787,)  the  Egyptians,  who  were  emjiloyed  in  agricul- 


LAWS    OF   THE   AI^CIENT   HEBKEWS.  153 

Strabo,*  one  of  the  most  grave,  solid,  and  judicious  of  heathen 
writers.  Speaking  of  the  antiquities  of  the  Medes,  Persians, 
and  Syrians,  he  says  :  "  These  nations  have  not  obtained 
any  great  credit  in  the  workl,  by  reason  of  the  simplicity 
and  fabulousness  of  their  historians." 

Let  us  descend  now  to  Greece  and  her  historians.  Tliat 
country  was  the  great  metropolis  of  ancient  art  and  learning. 
The  seat  of  letters  and  philosophy,  when  at  the  zenith  of  her 
glory  she  attracted  to  herself,  as  to  a  common  centre,  the 
gaze  and  admiration  of  the  world.  She  was  the  shrine,  at 
which  taste  and  genius  worshipped.  Her  very  decay  attests 
her  former  magnificence.  Her  very  ruins  are  models  of 
taste.  Her  broken  marbles  still  constitute  a  well-spring  of 
inspiration  to  genius.  But  what  is  the  ability  and  merit  of 
her  historians,  as  to  giving  an  account  of  the  most  ancient 
times  ?  Did  they,  by  the  depth  and  compass  of  their  re- 
searches, arrive  at  greater  certainty,  than  other  nations  were 

ture,  held  their  land  subject  to  rent.  Here  is  an  important  point  of  agree- 
ment between  sacred  and  profane  history,  viz.,  in  the  statement  of  the  fact, 
that  the  cultivators  of  the  soil  in  Egypt  were  not  the  owners  of  it.  Do  we 
not  feel,  instinctively,  that  these  profane  writers,  deriving  their  knowledge 
from  entirely  independent  sources,  confirm  by  their  testimony  the  truth  of 
the  scripture  history?  There  is,  indeed,  a  discrepancy  between  the  two 
accounts.  Moses  limits  the  ownership  of  the  laud  to  the  kings  and  the 
priests  ;  Diodorus  extends  it  to  a  third  order  in  the  state,  the  military  caste. 
Now,  if  there  were  no  means  of  reconciling  this  apparent  contradiction, 
we  could  not  hesitate  as  to  which  authority  is  most  entitled  to  credit.  But 
Herodotus  has  enabled  us  to  clear  up  the  difficulty.  According  to  him,  the 
land  of  the  soldiers  differed  from  the  land  of  the  peasants  in  being  free  of 
rent ;  but  otherwise  it  belonged  to  the  kings.  The  use  of  the  land  exempt 
from  public  burdens  was  instead  of  pay.  From  this  it  is  plain,  that 
Diodorus  was  led  into  the  error  of  supposing  that  the  military  order  owned 
their  land,  by  not  sifting  the  matter  to  the  bottom.  He  obsei'ved,  that  the 
tenure  in  their  case  was  different  from  that  of  the  peasants,  and  erroneously 
concluded,  that  they  were  pi-oprietors,  when  in  point  of  fact  they  were  but 


*  Lib.  n. 


154:  COMIVIENTARIES    ON   THE 

able  to  attain  ?  No,  in  no  wise.  Stillingfleet*  evinces  the 
defect  and  insufficiency  of  Grecian  history  by  three  argu- 
ments :  First,  that  the  earliest  writers  among  the  Greeks 
were  poetical  and  fabulous.  Secondly,  that  their  most 
ancient  historians  are  of  suspected  credit  and  authority  even 
among  themselves.  And  thirdly,  that  their  best  authors 
either  candidly  confess  their  ignorance  of  the  early  ages,  or 
clearly  betray  it. 

First:  Their  most  ancient  writers  were  poetical,  and 
most  manifestly  fabulous.  Strabof  undertakes  to  prove, 
that  prose  is  a  mere  imitation  of  poetry  ;  of  course  it  would 
follow,  that  poetry  must  Lave  been  written  before  prose.  At 
first,  he  says,  poetry  only  was  in  request;  afterwards,  in 
imitation  of  that,  Cadmus,  Pherecydes,  and  Hecatseus  wrote 
their  histories,  observing  all  the  laws  of  poetry,  except  its 
measures.  It  is  most  undoubted,  that  poetry  was  first  in  use 
among  llie  Greeks.  "When  they  began  to  emerge  out  of 
barbarism,  all  the  philosophical  and  moral  instructions  they 
received,  were  delivered  in  verse.  Plutarch;}:  instances  this 
in  Orpheus,  Hesiod,  Parmenides,  Xenophanes,  Empedocles, 
and  Thales.  Hence  Heinsius§  observes,  that  the  poets  were 
anciently  called  teachers.  Hence  also  the  same  word  in 
Greek,  and  afterwards  in  Latin,  denoted  poems  and  precepts 
of  morality.]  It  is  not  certain  when  poetry  first  came  into 
use  among  the  Greeks ;  but  it  is  certain,  that  it  was  em- 
ployed not  solely  for  instruction,  Strabof  says,  it  was  used 
"  the  more  gently  to  draw  people  on  to  idolatry."  He 
adds  :**  "  It  is  impossible  to  persuade  women  and  the  pro- 
miscuous multitude  to  religion  by  mere  dry  reason,  or  phi- 
losophy ;  but  for  this  there  is  need  of  superstition,  and  this 
cannot  be  advanced  without  some  fables  and  wonders.     The 

*  Orig.  Sac.  B.  1,  C.  4.  f  Lib.  1. 
X  De  Pith.  Orac.  p.  403,  ia  Stillingfleet. 

§  Diss,  in  Hes.  c.  6.  ||  Ibid. 
1[  Lib.  1.  **  Ibid. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  '155 

thunderbolts,  shields,  tridents,  serpents,  and  spears,  attri- 
buted to  the  gods,  are  mere  fables ;  and  so  is  all  tb  e  ancient 
theology ;  but  the  governors  of  the  commonwealth  made 
use  of  these  things  the  better  to  awe  the  silly  multitude, 
and  to  bring  them  into  better  order."  Eratosthenes,  a 
writer  of  such  solid  parts  and  attainments  as  to  have  gained 
the  title  of  another  Plato,  condemns  the  ancient  poetry  as 
old  wives'  tales,  without  real  learning  or  truth.* 

Secondly  :  The  earliest  historical  writers  of  Greece  are  of 
suspected  authority  among  their  own  countrymen,  and  mu- 
tually distrust  and  discredit  one  another.  Strabof  calls 
them  mere  writers  of  myths.  Diodorus:};  condemns,  as  fab- 
ulous Cadmus,  Hecatseus,  and  Hellanicus.  Strabo§  speaks 
of  Damastes  Sigeeiisis  as  unworthy  of  credit.  Yet  he  is 
followed  by  Eratosthenes,  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus, 
Plutarch,  Pliny,  and  other  approved  writers. I|  His  testi- 
mony is  also  taken  by  Aristeas  Proconnesius,  whom  Stil- 
lingfleet^  regards  as  the  Sir  John  Mandeville  of  Greece,  and 
whom  Strabo**  pronounces  inferior  to  no  one  in  jugglery, 
probably  because  it  was  commonly  reported,  that  he  had 
the  power  to  let  his  soul  out  of  his  body,  and  bring  it  back 
again  at  will.f  f 

But  further :  What  credit  can  be  given  to  the  historians, 
who  are  perpetually  criminating  one  another,  and  whose 
writings  are  filled  with  mutual  charges  of  error  and  decep- 
tion ?  Joseph usij::}:  informs  us,  that  Hesiod  is  accused  of  false- 
hood by  Aeusilaus ;  Acusilaus,  by  Ephorus ;  Ephorus,  by 
Timseus  ;  and  Timseus,  by  those  who  followed  him.     In  the 

*  Stillijigf.,  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c.  4.  f  Lib.  1 

X  111  StiUingf.,  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c  4.  g  Lib.  1 

II  Yoss.  de  Hist.  Graec,  1.  4,  c.  5,  in  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c.  4. 
^  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c  4.  **  Lib.  13. 

ft  "  Yet  this  juggler  did  Celsus  pitcli  on  to  confront  with  our  blessed 
Savior,  as  Hierocles  did  on  Apollonius  :  so  much  have  those  been  to  seek 
for  reason,  who  have  sought  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  faith." — Stixlingf. 
tl  Con.  App.  L.  1. 


156  COMMENT AEEES    ON   THE 

midst  of  such  contradictions,  where  shall  we  fix  our  belief? 
Upon  all  in  common  ?  That  were  to  believe,  that  black  is 
white,  and  white  black.  Shall  we  believe  one,  and  reject 
the  others  ?  What  evidence  does  that  one  give,  why  he 
should  be  believed  more  than  the  rest?  None  at  all.  It  is, 
then,  clearly  impossible  to  find  any  undoubted  certainty 
concerning  the  first  ages  in  any  of  the  Greek  historians. 

This  will  be  still  more  apparent,  when  it  is  added,  on  the 
authority  and  according  to  the  conclusive  reasoning  of  Yos- 
sius,*  that  the  highest  antiquity  of  the  historical  writers  of 
Greece  does  not  much  exceed  the  age  of  Cyrus  and  Cam- 
byses.  Of  many  even  of  these  nothing  now  remains  but 
their  bare  names.  A  catalogue  of  them  may  be  found  in 
Yossius  De  Historicis  Graecis.  Such  are  Sisyphus  Cous, 
Corinnus,  Eugeon  Samius,  Deiochus  Proconnesius,  Eudemus 
Parius,  Democles  Phigaleus,  Amelesagoras  Chalcedonius, 
Xenomedes  Chius,  and  several  others.  Of  all  these  histor- 
ians, not  even  the  subjects  on  which  they  wrote  are  known. 
Of  others,  whose  better  fortune  it  was  to  have  not  only 
their  names,  but  the  subjects  of  their  histories,  handed  down 
to  posterity,  nothing  is  extant,  till  the  time  of  the  Persian 
war.j-  Cadmus  of  Miletus  wrote  the  Antiquities  of  Ionia. 
Acusilaus  treated  on  Genealogies.  Pherecydes  Syrius  com- 
posed the  History  of  the  Gods.  Pherecydes  Lerius  wrote 
on  the  Attic  Antiquities.  Hecatseus  published  a  Descrip- 
tion of  Asia  ;  and  Hellannicus,  the  Originals  of  Nations,  and 
Pounders  of  Cities.  There  was  a  history  of  Persia,  Greece, 
and  Egypt,  written  by  Charon  Lampsacenus ;  of  Lydia,  by 
Xanthus ;  of  Corinth,  by  Eumelus  ;  of  Scythia,  by  Anachar- 
sis ;  of  Phrygia,  by  Diagoras ;  of  Chaldea  and  Persia,  by 
Democritus  ;  and  of  Sicily  and  Italy,  by  Hippys.  Where 
now  arc  all  these  works  ?  Swallowed  up  in  the  all-devouring 
gulf  of  time. 

*  De  Hist.  Graer.,  in  Stillingf.,  B.  1,  c.  4. 
t      Stillingf.,  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c.  4. 


LAWS   OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBKEWS.  157 

Thirdly :  Even  the  historians,  whose  works  ha\  e  come 
iown  to  lis,  either  candidly  confess  their  ignorance,  or  pal- 
pably betray  it.  Thiicydides,*  the  most  solid,  truth -loving, 
and  accurate  of  the  Greek  historical  writers,  not  only  con- 
fesses, but  proves,  the  impossibility  of  an  exact  account  of 
the  times  preceding  the  Peloponesian  war.  He  says,  that 
all  he  could  find  in  the  ancient  state  of  Greece,  was  a  great 
deal  of  confusion,  unquiet  stations,  frequent  removals,  con- 
tinual piracies,  and  no  settled  form  of  commonwealth. 
Plutarch, f  a  later  writer  of  distinguished  learning,  sagacious 
judgment,  and  sincere  love  of  truth,  j)retends  not  to  go 
farther  back  than  the  age  of  Theseus.  Before  that  time,  he 
says,  as  geographers  in  their  maps,  when  they  have  gone  as 
far  as  they  can,  fill  up  the  empty  spaces  with  impassible 
mountains,  or  frozen  seas,  or  devouring  sands,  so  those  who 
give  an  account  of  ancient  times  are  fain  to  insert  some 
wonderful  and  tragical  stories,  which  have  neither  truth  nor 
certainty  in  them. 

Thus  we  perceive,  that  those  who  were  best  able  to  judge 
of  the  credibility  of  the  early  Grecian  annals,  could  find  in 
them  no  sure  footing  to  stand  iij)on.  But  those  writers  who 
have  not  the  candor  to  own  their  ignorance,  very  plainly 
discover  it.  Herodotus;}:  denied,  that  there  was  an  ocean 
encompassing  the  land,  and  condemned  the  geographers  for 
asserting  it.  Aristotle  thought,  that  the  Indies  were  joined 
to  Europe  near  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar.§  Alexander  wrote 
to  his  mother,  that  he  had  found  the  sources  of  the  ]S"ile  in 

*  Lib.  1.  t  In  Stillingfleet,  L.  1,  c.  4. 

I  Lib.  2,  C.  5.  "  Herodotus  himself  hath  stood  in  need  of  his  compur- 
gators, who  yet  have  not  been  able  to  acquit  him  of  fabulousness.  *  *  * 
Herodotus  was  not  first  suspected  of  falsehood  in  these  latter  ages  of  the 
world,  but  even  among  the  Greeks  themselves  there  have  been  found  some 
that  would  undertake  to  make  good  that  charge  against  him.  *  *  *  Juse- 
phus  thinks  he  was  deceived  by  the  Egyijtian  priests  in  things  relating  to 
the  state  of  their  affairs." — Stillingfleet. 

g  In  Stillingfleet's  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c.  4. 


158  COMMENTAEIES    ON   THE 

the  East  Indies.*  Many  of  the  learned  Grecians  imagined, 
that  the  sun  with  a  great  noise  descended  into  the  ocean  every 
night.f  Yet  when  these  crude  ideas  jpi'evailed,  learning 
wa&  at  its  height  in  Greece,  and  discoveries  were  daily  made 
by  means  of  the  wars,  which  were  carried  on  abroad. 
What  credible  account  of  the  earliest  ages  can  we  expect 
from  men,  who  were  so  ignorant  of  the  state  of  the  world  in 
their  own  times  ?  Is  it  easier  to  pierce  the  darkness  of  anti- 
quity, and  bring  np  the  verities  of  history  from  its  cavernous 
recesses,  than  to  explore  the  surface  of  the  earth,  and  ascer- 
tain the  facts  of  geography,  which  are  always  within  our 
reach  ? 

So  much  for  the  first  argument  against  the  credibility  of 
profane  history,  when  its  statements  are  repugnant  to  those 
contained  in  the  Bible.  The  facts  of  sacred  history  are  in 
no  danger  of  being  discredited  with  candid  and  enlightened 
minds  on  any  such  grounds  as  these.  These  facts  stand 
fixed  and  immovable  as  mountains  of  brass.  Like  the  rock, 
that  defies  the  fury  of  the  waves,  they  remain  unafiected 
and  serene,  amid  the  assaults  of  sophistry,  ridicule,  and 
falsehood. 

The  second  general  argument  is  drawn  from  the  confu- 
sion and  ambiguity  of  ancient  profane  histories.  Proceed 
we  now  to  a  consideration  of  this  topic. 

"We  have  seen  how  deficient  the  early  profane  historians 
were  in  authentic  records,  out  of  which  to  construct  their 
several  narratives.  But  if  the  case  had  been  otherwise,  if 
the  materials,  which  they  used,  had  been  full  and  reliable, 
still,  if  the  accounts  of  ancient  times,  given  by  them,  were 
perplexed,  confused,  and  ambiguous,  this  circumstance 
would  be  as  fatal  to  their  credibility,  as  the  want  of  records. 
That  their  accounts  were  of  the  character  here  supposed, 
will  appeal*  evident  from  this  consideration,  that  their  chro- 
nology was  altogether  vague  and  uncertain.     Scaliger  has 

♦  Stillingfleet's  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c.  4.  f  Ibid. 


I 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  169 

well  denominated  chronology  the  life  and  soul  of  history, 
without  which,  it  is  a  rude  and  undigested  mass,  having 
neither  life  nor  form.  The  defectiveness  of  the  chronology 
of  the  ancient  heathen  nations  shows  itself  chiefly  in  two 
things, — the  uncertain  length  of  their  years,  and  the  want 
of  fixed  periods,  or  epochs,  to  which  to  refer  the  various 
transactions,  embraced  in  their  annals.  Let  us  briefly  par- 
ticularize under  each  of  these  heads. 

First :  The  uncertain  and  variable  length  of  their  years. 
A  year  is  a  system  of  days,  and  is  capable  of  as  great 
variety  in  duration,  as  there  are  methods  of  joining  days 
together.  If  the  years  of  ancient  nations  were  of  unequal 
lengths, — sometimes  lunar,  sometimes  solar,  sometimes  tliirty 
days,  sometimes  four  months,  sometimes  three  hundred  and 
sixty  5ays,  and  sometimes  three  hundred  and  sixty-flve  days, — • 
and  if  the  historians  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  years,  without 
distinguishing  between  the  several  kinds,  and  without  letting 
their  readers  know  which  kind  were  meant,  it  is  plain,  that 
this  must  introduce  inextricable  confusion  into  their  accounts 
of  early  times,  and  make  the  credibility  of  those  accounts 
more  than  a  matter  of  doubt.  That  there  was,  in  point  of 
fact,  this  inequality  of  duration  in  their  years,  is  proved  by 
many  and  unimpeachable  testimonies.  Plutarch,  in  his  Life 
of  ISTuma,  says :  "  The  Egyptians  had  at  first  a  year  of  one 
month,  and  afterwards  of  four  months."  Yarro,*  cited  by 
Lactantius,  speaks  of  the  Egyptian  year  of  thirty  days,  as  a 
thing  certain  and  undoubted.  Diodorus,  Solinus,  and 
Augustine,f  mention  the  year  of  four  months,  as  used  in 
computing  time  by  that  people.  That  they  had  also  the 
Bolar  year,  the  year  formed  by  the  passage  of  the  sun  through 
the  twelve  signs  of  the  zodiac,  is  evident  from  the  history  of 
Joseph,  since  the  seven  years  of  plenty  and  the  seven  years 
of  famine  in  Pharaoh's  dream  must  have  been  of  this  kind. 

Plutarch;}:  accounts  for  what  he  calls  "the  infinite  numbe? 

*  Stillingfleet^s  Orig.  Sac.  B.  1,  c.  5.        f  Ibid.         J  Life  of  Numa. 


160  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

of  years"  in  tlie  Egyptian  computation  by  tlie  fact,  that  tliey 
reckoned  months  for  years.  Stilliiigfleet,*  nsing  this  prin- 
ciple for  a  guide,  has,  with  great  hibor  and  learning,  reduced 
the  vast  number  of  Egyptian  years  to  something  like  reason 
and  probability.  But  which  ever  way  we  take  them,  the 
authority  of  Manetho  is  discredited.  When  Manetlio  wrote 
his  Dynasties,  the  Julian  year  of  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
five  days  was  in  use  in  Egypt.  Kow,  either  by  his  fifty  odd 
thousand  years  he  meant  Julian  years,  and  then  his  history 
must  be  looked  upon  as  fabulous ;  or  he  meant  years  of 
months,  and  then  he  is  open  to  the  charge  of  intentional 
deception.  In  cither  case,  he  is  an  unsafe  guide  in  histo- 
rical inquiries ;  and  his  statements  are  not  entitled  to  the 
least  weight,  when  ever  they  happen  to  be  repugnant  to 
those  of  Holy  Writ.  And  here  I  may  observe,  by  the  way, 
that  it  appears  to  have  been  the  policy  of  the  Egyptian 
priests  to  mislead  and  deceive  the  credulous  Greeks,  in  the 
accounts  which  they  gave  of  their  national  antiquities ;  a 
thing  which,  by  reason  of  the  difi'erent  kinds  of  years  in  use 
among  them,  they  could  the  more  readily  do,  without  being 
impeached  of  direct  falsehood ;  since  their  statements,  though 
not  true  in  the  sense  in  which  they  were  understood,  were 
yet  true  in  a  sense  known  only  to  themselves. 

There  is  good  reason  to  believe,  that  the  Chaldeans  also, 
as  well  as  the  Egyptians,  had  years  of  unequal  duration. 
This  has  been  conclusively  shown  by  Bishop  Stillingfleet  in 
the  fifth  chapter  of  the  first  book  of  his  Origines  Sacrse,  to 
which  the  reader,  who  would  see  the  argument  handled  at 
length,  is  referred. 

Secondly :  Tlie  defective  chronology  of  the  ancients  ap- 
pears from  this,  that  tliey  had  no  fixed  periods,  or.  great 
epochs,  of  an  early  date,  to  which  they  could  refer  the 
events  recorded  in  their  histories. 

Such  fixed  periods  are  essential  to  the  clearness  and  cer- 
*  Orig.  Sac.  B.  1,  c.  5. 


I 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  161 

tainty  of  historical  narrations.  Diodorns  *  takes  notice  of 
this  in  speaking  of  the  liistory  of  his  own  country.  These 
are  his  words  :  "Tliere  is  no  certainty  in  the  ancient  Grecian 
history,  hecause  they  liad  no  certain  term,  from  whence  to 
deduce  tlieir  accounts."  This  view  of  the  matter  is  most 
just  and  rationah  For,  if  there  be  no  fixed  points  of  time 
to  determine  the  succession  of  ages,  and  to  measure  the 
events  which  occur  in  the  intervening  spaces,  we  shall  be 
perpetually  tossed  upon  an  ocean  of  uncertainties,  without 
any  solid  foundation,  whereon  to  ground  any  account  of  an- 
cient times.  "The  ancient  accounts  of  the  world,"  says  Stil- 
lingfleet,f  "  were  merely  from  year  to  year,  and  that  with 
abundance  of  obscurity,  uncertainty,  and  variety  ;  sometimes 
going  by  the  moon,  and  therein  they  were  as  mutable  as  the 
moon  herself,  how  to  conform  the  year  regularly  to  her 
motion;  and  it  was  yet  greater  difficulty  to  regulate  it  by 
the  course  of  the  sun,  and  to  make  the  accounts  of  the  sun 
and  moon  meet.  Tliere  was  so  much  perplexity  and  con- 
fusion about  tlie  ordering  of  a  single  year,  and  so  long  in 
most  nations  before  they  could  bring  it  into  any  order,  that 
we  are  not  to  expect  any  fixed  periods,  by  which  to  find  out 
the  succession  of  ages  among  them." 

The  Egyptians  are  commonly  believed  to  have  been  best 
skilled  in  the  computation  and  adjustment  of  times.  Yet 
they  were  long  in  finding  out  any  certain  course  of  the  year, 
and  reducing  it  to  a  systematic  fonn.  Even  after  they  had 
learned  to  regulate  the  year  by  the  course  of  the  sun,  they 
made  it  consist  of  only  three  hundred  and  sixty  days.  Such 
a  division  of  the  year  must,  in  process  of  time,  be  the  occa- 
sion of  very  great  confusion,  since  the  months  would  be  co'" 
tinually  changing  their  places,  so  that  a  month,  which  wat. 
once  in  the  summer,  would  come  at  length  to  be  a  winter 
month,  and  vice  versa.  Tliis  explains  the  fable  told  by  the 
Egyptian  priests  to  Herodotus,:}:  that  in  the  times  of  their 

*  In  Still.,  B.  1,  c.  6.  t  Ibid.  J  Euterpe. 

11 


162  COMMKJS'TAEIES    ON    THE 

earl}^  kings,  the  sun  had  twice  changed  his  rising  and 
Betting.  It  was  not  the  snn,  but  their  months,  that  had 
changed,  by  reason  of  the  defective  adjustinent  of  their 
year.  The  observation  of  this  effect  led  the  Egyptians,  after 
a  great  lapse  of  time,  to  add  five  days  to  their  year.  Yet 
even  so  it  was  still  deficient  by  one  fourth  of  a  da3^ 
"Whether  they  ever  intercalated  a  day  in  their  civil  year  has 
been  a  question  much  debated  among  the  learned,  and  espe- 
cially by  Scaliger  and  Petavius.  It  seems  probable,  that 
they  never  did,  as  Censorinus,*  who  lived  in  the  third  cen- 
tury of  the  Christian  era,  says  expressly,  that  in  his  time  the 
civil  year  of  the  Egyptians  had  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
five  days  only,  without  any  intercalation.  Tlie  result  of 
Stillingfleet's  learned  and  able  examination  of  this  subject, 
BO  far  as  the  Egyptians  are  concerned,  is,  that  "  they  had 
anciently  no  certain  periods  to  govern  themselves  by  in 
their  computation  of  ancient  times."  "Nay,"  he  adds,  "  the 
Egyptians  have  not,  as  appears,  any  certain  epochas  to  go  by, 
elder  than  tlie  Egyptian  years  of  Nabonassar,  and  afterwards 
from  the  death  of  Alexander,  and  Ptolemy  Philadelphus, 
and  Augustus's  victory  at  Actium." 

Passing  from  the  domain  of  Egyptian  into  that  of  Grecian 
history,  we  find  ourselves  plunged  into  still  deeper  uncer- 
tainties. Here,  until  the  Greeks  began  to  reckon  by 
olympiads,  we  have  no  fixed  periods,  no  certain  epochs,  to 
serve  as  a  i^ole  star  to  guide  us  in  the  vast  ocean  of  Grecian 
antiquities.  The  early  accounts  of  Greece  are  most  imper- 
fect and  fragmentary.  Varro  in  Censorinus  divides  the 
wdiole  succession  of  Grecian  history  into  three  parts,  two  of 
which  he  accounts  as  mythical  and  fabulous,  and  the 
third  only,  beginning  with  the  olympiads,  as  historical. 
Some  writers,  as  Scaliger,  Ileeren,  &c.  name  the  second 
period,  extending  from  the  siege  of  Ti'oy  to  the  olympiads, 
heroic,  considering  it  historical  in  respect  to  persons,  but 
*  De  Die  Nat.  c.  18. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  16S 

fabulous  in  respect  to  actions.  Some  of  the  learned  Greeks, 
— as  Apollodorus,  Dionjsius,  and  others,  who  were  skilled 
in  astronomy — labored,  with  commendable  zeal,  as  Stilling- 
fleet*  says,  "  to  find  out  some  certain  periods  to  fix  on  in  the 
time  before  the  olympiads."  Supposing  them,  by  their  astro- 
nomical calculations,  to  have  truly  assigned  the  destruction  of 
Troy  to  1184  B.C.,  what  a  vast  tract  of  time  there  is  before 
the  Trojan  war,  whose  history  is  wholly  fabulous !  And  as 
to  the  series  of  events  in  the  interval  between  that  epoch 
and  the  olympiads,  it  is  all  confusion  and  uncertainty. 

Great  is  the  ambiguity  in  the  accounts  of  the  foundation 
and  early  history  of  the  several  states  of  Greece.  Matters 
are  here  so  perplexed,  confused,  and  uncertain,  that  their 
own  ablest  chronologists  give  over  the  reduction  of  them  to 
any  certain  form.  Dionysius,  of  Halicarnassus,  considers 
Argolis  as  the  most  ancient  of  the  Grecian  kingdoms.  He 
places  the  foundation  of  it  a  thousand  years  before  that  ot 
Attica.  Yet  he  makes  the  Arcadians,  who  boasted  that  they 
were  older  than  the  moon,  younger  than  the  Athenians  by 
nine  generatiotis,  that  is,  according  to  the  Grecian  computa- 
tion, nearly  three  hundred  years.  What  is  still  more  re- 
markable, he  makes  Phthiotis  under  Ducalion  younger  than 
these  same  Arcadians  by  forty-two  generations,  or  more 
than  a  thousand  years. f  Most  justly  has  Scaliger:|:  pro- 
nounced these  accounts  inconsistent  and  impossible.  The 
greater  part  of  historians  ditfer  from  Dionysius,  in  consider- 
ing Sycion  as  the  oldest  of  the  Grecian  states.  Yarro,  as 
we  learn  from  Augustine,§  commenced  his  history  with  the 
foundation  of  this  kingdom.  But  here,  too,  the  accounts  are 
confused  and  contradictory.  Pausanias  gives  a  list  of 
Sycionian  kings,  without  any  succession  of  times  among 
them.  Africanus  and  Eusebius  differ  from  Pausanias  in 
reepect  to   these  names.  ||     But  what  is  strangest  of  all  ib, 

*  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c.  6.  f  ^buL  t  De  Hist.  Grsec. 

^  Be  Civit.  Dei,  1.  16,  c.  2.  [\  Orig.  Sac.  B.  1,  c.  6. 


164  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

that  Adrastus,  wlio  is  tlie  twentj-tliird  king  of  Sycion  in  tlie 
list  of  Africaniis,  is  said  by  Homer*  to  have  been  the  first. 
So  perplexed  and  uncertain  is  the  account  of  ancient  times 
among  the  Greeks,  before  they  began  to  ?'eckon  by  olym- 
piads. Not  without  the  greatest  reason  does  Diodorus  deny 
all  certainty  to  the  ancient  Grecian  history,  assigning  as  the 
cause  the  fact,  that  tliey  had  no  certain  term,  from  whence 
to  deduce  their  accounts.  A  is  true,  that  the  succession  of 
times  and  events  becomes  comparatively  clear  and  consistent 
after  the  system  of  olympiads  commenced.  But  this  was 
not,  as  Scaliger  has  clearly  shown,  till  the  year  Y76  B.C.f 

Such  was  the  crude  state  of  chronological  knowledge  in 
the  early  ages.  There  would  seem  to  have  been  no  branch 
of  learning,  in  which  the  ancients  were  less  skilled ;  and  yet 
there  is  no  branch  more  essential  to  the  exactness  and 
credibility  of  historical  relations. 

Another  circumstance  which  tended,  in  no  slight  degree, 
to  the  confusion  and  ambiguity  of  early  profane  history, 
was  the  uncertain  signification  of  the  characters  in  which 
the  records  were  made.  "  It  is  well  known  of  the  Egyptian 
priests,"  says  Stillingfleet,:J:  "  that  the  sacred  characters  of 
their  temples  were  seldom  made  known  to  any  but  such  as 
were  of  their  own  number  and  family,  or  such  others  as  by 
long  converse  had  insinuated  themselves  into  their  society, 
as  some  of  the  Greek  philosophers  and  historians  had  done. 
Tliat  the  Phenician  priests  had  their  peculiar  and  sacred 
characters  too,  is  evident  from  the  words  of  Philo  Byblius 
concerning  Sanchoniathon,  if  we  take  Bochart's  exposition 
of  them.  He  tells  us,  that  his  h'story  was  compared  with 
the  inscriptions  in  the  temples,  written  in  Ammunean 
letters,  which  are  known  to  few.  The  same  author  tells  us, 
out  of  Diogenes  Laertius,  of  a  book  of  Democritus  concern- 
ing the  sacred  characters  in  Babylon,  by  which  it  is  evident, 

*  HI.  1.  2.  t  De  Emend.  Temp.,  I.  5. 

;  Orig.  Sac,  B.  1,  c.  5. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  165 

tliat  tLe  Babylonian  priests  had  tlieir  sacred  characters  too  ; 
and  also  of  a  testimony  of  Theodoret  in  respect  to  all  tlie 
Grecian  temples,  that  they  had  some  peculiar  characters, 
which  were  called  sacred.  But  that  learned  author  thinks, 
that  there  is  no  necessity  of  understanding  it  peculiarly  of 
the  Grecians,  because  the  Greek  fathers  called  all  the 
heathens  by  the  name  of  Greeks  ;  but  if  so,  the  testimony  is 
larger,  and  amounts  to  an  universal  testimony  of  the  heathen 
temples." 

The  third  general  argument  to  evince  the  want  of  credibil- 
ity in  the  history  of  the  most  ancient  times,  is  drawn  from 
the  manifest  partiality  of  the  historians  to  their  respective 
countries,  and  their  inconsistency  with  each  other. 

It  requires  but  a  slight  acquaintance  with  the  historical 
writers  of  antiquity  to  be  convinced,  that  a  chief  object  of  al- 
most every  one  of  them  was  to  enhance  the  glory  of  his  own 
country,  and  that  too  many  of  them  were  little  scrupulous  as 
to  the  means  by  which  that  end  should  be  attained.  Hence 
the  high-sounding  claims  to  antiquity  put  forth  by  the  Egyp- 
tians, Chaldeans,  Greeks,  and  various  other  nations.  The  er- 
rors, inconsistencies,  contradictions,  and  mutual  charges  of 
deception,  of  which  the  historians  are  guilty,  have  already 
abundantly  appeared  in  our  preceding  inquiries.  These,  if  it 
were  necessary,  might  be  still  further  evinced  by  a  compari- 
son of  what  has  been  written  by  Manetho,  Herodotus, 
Diodorus,  and  Eratosthenes  concerning  the  Egyptian  History  ; 
by  Herodotus,  Diodorus,  and  Africanus  concerning  the  As- 
syrian history ;  by  Herodotus  and  Clesias  concerning  the 
Persian  history  ;  and  by  all  the  Greeks  concerning  themselves. 
The  want  of  credibility  in  the  ancient  histories,  on  this  par 
ticular  ground,  is  strikingly  set  forth  by  the  learned  British 
antiquary,  Bishop  Richardson.*  He  says,  that,  after  a  dili- 
gent study  of  the  History  of  Persia,  as  written  by  native 
Persian  authors  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  the  Greek  historians 
*  Observations  on  Ezekiel  cited  in  Hale's  Analysis  of  Chronology. 


166  COMMENT  i.RIES  ON  THE 

on  the  other,  he  was  scarcely  able  to  recogni-ze  any  identity 
between  their  respective  accounts. 

Thus  much  to  show  the  uncertainty  of  early  profane  his- 
tories. What  credit  can  such  vague,  confused,  and  contradic- 
toiy  reports  have  with  intelligent  and  candid  readers,  when 
their  statements  conflict  with  those  of  sacred  history  ?  The 
credibility  of  the  historians  on  doubtful  points  is  quite 
destroyed  by  their  evident  inability  to  give  an  authentic  ac- 
count of  the  earliest  times ;  by  the  confusion,  inconsistency, 
and  ambiguity  of  the  accounts,  which  they  have  given ;  and 
by  their  manifest  and  blinding  partiality  to  themselves. 
To  demonstrate  the  credibility  of  the  Mosaic  history,  as  con- 
tained in  the  Pentateuch,  will  be  the  object  of  the  following 
chapter. 


CHAPTER  lY. 

Credibility  of  Moses  as  an  Historian. 


I  PROCEED  to  the  execution  of  the  design  announced  at  the 
close  of  the  last  chapter,  viz. :  to  evince  the  trustworthiness 
of  the  Mosaic  history,  Moses  was  an  historian,  as  well  as  a 
lawgiver;  and  it  concerns  us  to  settle  his  credibility  in  that 
character.  If  his  testimony  cannot  be  relied  on,  if  his  com- 
monwealth, like  the  Utopian  republics  of  Plato,  Harrington, 
and  More,  be  but  an  ingenious  romance,  though  the  study  of 
it  may  amuse  an  idle  hour,  it  becomes  comparatively  value- 
less, as  a  practical  guide  in  legislation. 

There  is  an  antecedent  probability,  that  the  supreme  ruler 
of  the  world  should  have  caused  an  authentic  history  of  the 
first  ages  to  be  written.-  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  that 
*  See  on  this  suljject  Stillingf.  Orig.  Sac.  B.  2,  c  1. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  167 

events,  so  remarkable  and  important  as  those  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch,  should  not  always  be  left  to  the  uncertainty  of 
oral  tradition,  but  should  be  embodied  in  permanent  records, 
to  be  preserved  to  the  memory  of  posterity.  That  a  firm  be- 
lief as  to  future  events, — a  point  of  no  little  importance  to 
mankind, — be  established,  it  must  be  settled  in  our  belief,  that 
all  past  events  have  been  managed  by  divine  providence. 
Upon  what  basis  can  such  a  conviction  rest,  other  than  that 
of  some  credible  record  of  former  ages  ?  Without  something 
of  this  kind,  the  mind  of  man  will  be  at  sea  upon  an  ocean  of 
uncertainties.  And,  as  it  is  antecedently  probable,  that  God 
would  cause  such  a  record  to  be  made,  it  is,  in  like  manner, 
antecedently  probable,  that  he  wuuld  cause  it  to  be  made  in 
such  form,  that  it  might  be  conveyed,  with  equal  certainty, 
to  the  whole  race  of  mankind.  It  must,  therefore,  be  held 
agreeable  to  reason,  that  God  should  have  employed  some 
suitable  person  to  write  an  authentic  history  of  his  dealings 
with  men,  during  the  primitive  ages  of  the  world. 

The  question  now  before  us  is,  did  God,  in  point  of  fact,  cause 
such  a  record  to  be  made  ?  And  this  question  branches  itself 
out  into  two  others,  viz. :  First,  is  Moses  the  author  of  the  books, 
which  commonly  go  under  his  name?  Secondly,  is  the  his- 
tory contained  in  these  books,  worthy  of  credit?  Is  it  a 
credible  account  of  the  events  which  it  narrates  ?  It  is  the 
purpose  of  the  present  cliapter  to  assert  and  prove  the  afiir- 
mative  of  these  questions. 

Beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  Moses  is  the  author  of  the 
history,  commonly  ascribed  to  him.  Here,  it  is  proper  to  ob- 
serve, that  we  must  not  look  for  evidence  of  this  fact,  different, 
either  in  kind  or  degree,  from  that  which  the  matter  to  be 
proved  admits.*  It  would  be  unreasonable  to  demand  mathe- 
matical demonstration,  in  a  matter  admitting  only  that  kind 
of  proof,  which  is  called  moral  certainty.  Does  any  man 
question  the  fact,  that  Euclid  is  the  author  of  the  geometry, 
*  Ibid  B.  2,  t.  1. 


168  COMMENTAKIES    ON    THE 

going  under  his  name,  merely  because  a  proposition,  affirm- 
ing such  authorship,  cannot  be  established  by  a  demonstra- 
tion, similar  to  those  which  he  employs  in  proving  his 
theorems  ?  All  the  hellebore  in  the  three  Anticyras  would 
not  suffice  to  cure  such  a  person.  In  point  of  fact,  the 
weightiest  actions  of  men's  lives  are,  for  the  most  part,  based 
upon  no  other  foundation,  than  this  moral  certainty.  Why  do 
I  invest  thousands  of  dollars  in  the  purchase  of  a  certain  es- 
tate ?  Because  I  believe,  on  moral  evidence,  that  the  title  is 
good.  Why  am  I  braving  the  perils  of  the  deep  in  a  frail 
bark,  for  purposes  of  gain,  or  health,  or  pleasure  ?  Because  I 
am  morally  certain,  that  there  are  such  places  as  London, 
Paris,  Naples,  Calcutta,  and  Canton.  Indeed,  we  must 
either  deny  altogether,  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  historical 
verity,  or  we  must  admit,  that  moral  certainty  is  a  valid 
ground  of  assent  to  historical  relations. 

We  are  not  now  inquiring  into  the  divine  legation  of  Moses, 
that  is,  whether  he  was  commissioned  and  inspired  of  God, 
in  the  giving  of  his  laws,  and  the  writing  of  his  history.  That 
question  will  form  the  subject  of  a  future  chapter  in  this 
treatise.  In  an  inquiry  into  a  written  divine  revelation, 
there  are  two  distinct  questions  to  be  considered,  viz.  first, 
whether  the  writing  be  genuine  and  authentic,  that  is,  whether 
it  was  written  by  the  person  whose  name  it  bears,  and 
whether  it  relate  matters  of  fact,  as  they  actually  occurred ; 
and,  secondly,  whether  the  matters  recorded  are  of  true  divine 
revelation.*  If  we  would  avoid  plunging  into  an  inextri- 
cable labyrinth,  we  must  carefully  attend  to  this  distinction, 
when  we  seek,  either  to  undei*stand  for  ourselves,  or  to  ex- 
plain to  others,  the  ground  of  a  belief,  that  any  particular 
writing  is  the  word  of  God.  The  first  of  these  points, — viz. 
the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  Mosaic  record, — is  the 
special  subject  of  our  present  inquiry. 

In  conducting  this  investigation,  the  first  proposition  to  be 
*  Slillingfleefs  Orig.  Sac.  B.  2,  c.  1. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBKEWS.  169 

proved,  is  that  the  history  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  is, 
undoubtedly,  the  composition  of  Moses. 

Here  the  reader's  attention  is  called,  at  the  outset,  to  the 
nature  and  form  of  this  writing.  Two  distinct  elements  are 
observable  in  it; — one,  a  set  of  laws  forming  a  complete 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  code ;  the  other,  an  historical  detail  of 
the  principal  events,  connected  with  the  promulgation  of  the 
laws.*  The  two  elements  are  combined  in  a  manner  quite 
extraordinary.  The  laws  do  not  stand  insulated  by  them- 
selves, neither  are  they  embodied  in  a  systematic  form,  like 
the  institutes  ofLycurgus,  or  the  pandects  of  Justinian.  But, 
however  paradoxical  the  assertion  may  seem,  they  are  both 
separated  and  connected  by  the  historical  narrative.  "  It  is  a 
code  of  laws  in  a  frame  of  history. "f  There  are  continual 
transitions  from  history  to  law,  and  from  law  to  history. 
They  are  everywhere  grafted,  the  one  into  the  other;  and 
there  is  such  a  mutual  connexion  and  dependence,  that  the 
two  parts  seem  to  grow  together,  like  the  several  branches 
of  a  tree.  It  is  material  to  keep  this  fact  in  memory,  as  im- 
portant use  will  be  made  of  it,  in  the  progress  of  this  argu- 
ment. "With  this  preliminary  observation,  I  proceed  to  ex- 
hibit the  proof  of  the  proposition  now  in  hand,  viz. :  that 
Moses  is  the  author  of  the  books  commonly  attributed  to  him. 

The  argument  here  is  similar  to  that  which  would  be  em- 
ployed in  evincing  the  genuineness  of  any  other  ancient  writ- 
ing. Let  it  be  proposed,  for  example,  to  prove  the  genuineness 
of  Caesar's  Commentaries  ;  and  let  the  most  acute  deist  or  ra- 
tionalist frame  his  proofs  to  establish  the  fact,  that  Caesar  is 
the  author  of  that  writing.  Every  one  of  them,  mutatis  mu- 
tandis, would  be  pertinent  in  an  argument  to  prove  that 
Moses  is  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch.  Isor  would  this  even 
exhaust  the  proof;  for,  superadded  to  all  the  considerations 
that  could  be  adduced  in  support  of  the  former  of  these  prop- 

*  Edwards'  Works,  v,  9,  pp.  130,  seqq. 
t  Bib.  Rep  Jan.  1848. 


170  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

ositions,  are  several  new  and  distinct  topics  of  arguments, 
of  invincible  force  in  favor  of  the  latter. 

In  the  general  argument  evincing  the  credibility  of  Moses 
as  an  historian,  the  second  proposition  to  be  proved  is,  that 
his  narrative  is  authentic  as  well  as  genuine,  that  is  to  say, 
its  statements  are  in  accordance  with  fact  and  reality.  In 
other  words,  the  history  was  not  only  written  by  Moses,  but 
it  contains  a  true  relation  of  events  really  occurring,  and  set 
forth  as  they  occurred. 

The  attributes  of  genuineness  and  authenticity  are  not  al- 
ways found  united  in  the  same  work.  The  history  of  Tele- 
machus,  by  Fenelon,  is  a  fictitious  narrative,  but  it  was  writ- 
ten by  the  man  whose  name  it  bears  ;  it  is,  therefore,  genuine, 
but  not  authentic.  The  book,  entitled  Travels  of  Ali  Bey,  is 
a  true  account  of  a  journey  through  several  eastern  countries, 
by  a  European  scholar,  under  an  assumed  name ;  it  is  there- 
fore, authentic,  but  not  genuine.  The  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch,  however,  are  inseparable  at- 
tributes. The  former  involves  the  latter.  They  are  so 
interwoven  and  blended  together,  that,  although  they  may  be 
separated  in  thought,  they  may  be  most  conveniently 
considered  in  connexion.  They  will,  therefore,  be  so  treated 
in  the  following  inquiries. 

Let  us  first  examine  the  external  testimony,  by  which  the 
truth  and  genuineness  of  the  Mosaic  history  are  supported. 

That  the  Pentateuch  existed  in  its  present  form,  from  the 
close  of  the  Babylonish  captivity  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  that 
it  was  written  by  Moses,  and  that  it  contained  a  true  record  of 
the  transactions  and  occurrences,  which  it  relates,  is  the  voice 
of  all  antiquity.  The  first  question  to  be  considered,  then,  is, 
whether  the  book  was  compiled  from  vague  and  indistinct 
traditions,  on  the  return  of  the  Jews  out  of  their  captivity, 
and  palmed  upon  the  nation,  as  the  genuine  work  of  their 
ancient  lawgiver?  Various  considerations  might  be  urged  to 
show  the  falsity  of  this  suspicion  ;  but  I  shall  confine  myself 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  171 

to  three,  both  for  tlie  sake  of  brevity,  and  because  they  are  in 
themselves  decisive. 

The  first  consideration,  showing  tliat  the  Pentateuch  was 
not  compiled  at  the  close  of  the  captivity,  is  the  fact,  that  the 
book  of  the  law  of  Moses  was  a  thing  by  no  means  unknown 
to  the  Jews,  during  the  captivity.  Distinct  and  repeated 
allusions  are  made  to  it  in  the  prophecies  of  Daniel.  See 
Dan.  vi.  5  ;  ix.  10-13  ;  xi.  22-32.  From  the  first  of  these  pas- 
sages it  is  manifest,  that  the  law  of  Moses  was  known  to  the 
heathen  themselves  ;  and  from  all,  that  the  Jews,  at  least  the 
better  informed  among  them,  were  quite  familiar  with  it. 
The  publicity,  nay,  even  the  notoriety,  which  the  book  of  the 
law  had  obtained  among  the  heathen,  is  still  more  apparent 
from  the  letter  of  Artaxerxes,  authorizing  Ezra  to  go  up  to 
Jerusalem  at  the  head  of  such  of  his  countrymen  as  were 
willing  to  accompany  him,  to  reform  the  government  and 
beautify  the  temple  and  city  of  their  fathers :  "  Artaxerxes, 
king  of  kings,  unto  Ezra  the  priest,  a  scribe  of  the  law  of  the 
God  of  heaven.  *  *  *  -Jfr,  According  to  the  law  of  thy 
God,  which  is  in  thine  hand.  *  *  *  *.  And  thou,  Ezra, 
after  the  wisdom  of  thy  God,  that  is  in  thine  hand,  set  magis- 
trates and  judges,  which  may  judge  all  the  people,  that  are 
beyond  the  river,  all  such  as  know  the  laws  of  thy  God ;  and 
teach  ye  them  that  know  them  not."  See  the  whole  letter  of 
Artaxerxes  to  Ezra,  (Ez.  vii.  12-26)  of  which  the  above  pas- 
sages are  but  brief  citations.  From  the  prophecies  of  Ilag- 
gai  (ii.  11-13,)  it  appears,  that  the  priests  in  Jerusalem  had 
the  book  of  the  law,  before  Ezra  came  to  them,  in  virtue 
of  his  commission  from  the  great  king;  even  when  they 
first  came  out  of  the  captivity.  The  same  may  be  inferred 
from  a  statement  contained  in  Ezra  iii.  2.  It  is  also  quite 
clear,  that,  not  more  than  a  dozen  or  fifteen  years  after  Ezra 
first  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  Nehemiah,  then  cup-bearer  to  the 
great  king  in  Shushan,  or  Susa,  was  well  acquainted  with  the 
book  of  the  law  of  Moses.     See  jSTeh.  i.  7-9.     From  all  this, 


172  COMMENT  AKIES    ON   THE 

two  things  are  plain — 1st,  that  a  writing  under  the  name  of  the 
hook  of  the  law  of  Moses,  existed  and  was  widely  known, 
both  among  Jews  and  heathen,  dm-ing  the  captivity  ;  and 
2ndly,  that  Ezra  enjoyed  an  extensive  and  distinguished  rep- 
utation, as  "  a  ready  scribe"  in  that  law.  Such  a  reputation, 
it  is  well  known,  is  of  slow  growth,  and  is  long  in  coming  to 
that  breadth  and  height,  which  the  fame  of  Ezra  had  evident- 
ly reached.  Either  of  these  considerations  would  prove,  much 
more  do  both  together  evince,  that  the  copy  of  the  law,  which 
Ezra  took  wUh  him  to  Jerusalem,  and  which  became  the  basis 
of  his  numerous  and  salutary  governmental  reforms,  could  not 
have  been  a  writing,  forged  out  of  his  own  brain,  or  even 
compiled  by  him  from  floating  and  uncertain  historical  tradi- 
tions. 

The  second  proof,  on  which  I  rely  to  establish  the  same 
conclusion,  is  of  still  greater  strength.  It  is  the  fact,  that  the 
code,  which  Ezra  enjoined,  and  which  the  people  received, 
so  far  from  containing  only  such  provisions,  as  were  suited 
to  the  temper  and  agreeable  to  the  wishes  of  the  nation, 
required  sacrifices,  of  the  gravest  and  most  painful  kind ; 
sacrifices,  which  no  wise  governor  would  have  ventured  to 
impose,  and  no  people  would  have  consented  to  make,  but 
in  obedience  to  a  law,  whose  authority  was  beyond  dispute.* 
To  instance  only  one  particular  of  this  sort.  The  law  for- 
bade intermarriages,  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  with  idola- 
trous nations.  This  prohibition  had  been  infringed  in 
numerous  instances,  during  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews.f 
Ezra,  armed  with  the  authority  of  what  claimed  to  be  the 
code  of  Moses,  entered  upon  the  reformation  of  the  national 
manners  in  this  respect,  w^ith  a  boldness  and  zeal  w^orthy  of 
the  occasion  and  of  himself.:|:  The  greatest  alarm  and  con- 
sternation seized  upon  all  classes,  on  discovering  the  vast 
numbers  involved  in  the  transgression,  and  the  high  rank 

*  Graves  on  the  Pent.  Pt.  1,  Lect. 

\  Ez.  ix.  1,  2  ;  X.  13.  |  Ez.  ix.  3,  seq. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  1T3 

of  many  of  the  offenders ;  for  many  of  the  priests,  Levites, 
and  princes  of  the  congregation  were  among  them.*  Never- 
theless, the  history  informs  us,  that  Israel,  with  one  voice, 
said,  "  Let  us  make  a  covenant  with  our  God,  to  put  away 
all  the  strange  wives,  and  such  as  are  born  of  them,  accord- 
ing to  the  counsel  of  my  lord,  and  of  those  that  tremble  at 
the  commandment  of  our  God,  and  let  it  be  done  according 
to  the  law."f  A  commission  was,  accordingly,  appointed  to 
investigate  the  matter,  and  the  inquiry  proved  to  be  of  such 
extent,  in  consequence  of  the  multitude  of  persons  involved 
in  the  guilt,  that  three  months  were  consumed  in  the  pro- 
secution of  it.:}:  Does  this  seem  like  obedience  to  a  code  of 
doubtful  authority  ?  Has  it  the  air  of  submission  to  a  newly 
formed  compilation  of  traditionary  laws  ?  Would  any  sane 
man  invent  or  forge  such  a  statute,  under  the  circumstances, 
and  if  there  had  existed  a  degree  of  folly,  equal  to  such  an 
attempt,  could  it  have  met  with  any  response,  other  than 
that  of  scorn  and  contempt  ?  In  a  word,  this  fact  seems  to 
me  a  decisive  proof,  that  the  code,  received  and  acknowl- 
edged by  the  Jews,  on  their  return  out  of  captivity,  was  the 
identical  code,  received  and  acknowledged  by  them,  before 
the  dissolution  of  their  government ;  and  that  it  was  not  then 
invented,  modified,  compiled,  or  recast,  but  was  embodied  in 
the  well  known  and  authentic  records  of  the  state,  i.  e.  in 
the  Pentateuch,  as  we  now  have  it. 

There  is  still  a  third  argument,  in  support  of  the  same 
view,  of  greater  cogency,  than  either  of  the  foregoing  ones. 
It  is  well  known,  that  a  bitter  enmity  existed  between  tlio 
Jews  and  the  Samaritans,  from  the  very  beginning  of  the 
captivity  down  through  all  the  subsequent  history  of  the 
nation.  It  would  be  in  contradiction  of  every  principle  of 
human  nature  to  suppose,  that  the  Samaritans  would  receive, 
as  authentic,  a  law  and  a  history,  invented  or  compiled  by  the 
Jews,  so  long  after  the  commencement  of  the  original  feud. 

*  Ez.  X.  1,  9.  t  Ez.  X.  3.  t  Ez.  x.  16, 17. 


174:  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

Yet,  what  was  the  code  of  the  Samaritans  ?  Tlie  Pentateuch, 
the  whole  Pentateuch,  and  nothing  but  the  Pentateuch. 
This  was  always  held  by  them  to  be  the  genuine  work  of 
Moses ;  was  received  as  true  and  authentic  ;  and  was  re- 
verenced as  of  divine  original  and  authority.  Could  there 
be  a  more  certain  proof,  could  mathematical  demonstration 
itself  more  indubitably  establish  the  fact,  that  the  copy  of  the 
law,  used  by  Ezra,  was  not  a  writing  forged  by  him,  and 
foisted  upon  his  countrymen,  as  the  original  and  genuine 
production  of  their  ancient  lawgiver  ? 

But  Ezra  did  not  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  till  seventy-nine 
years  after  the  edict  of  Cyrus,  and  the  first  return  of  the  Jews 
to  tlieir  own  country.  It  may,  therefore,  be  pretended,  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  compiled  by  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem, 
during  the  interval,  which  elapsed  between  their  first  return 
and  the  coming  of  Ezi*a.  This  hypothesis  is  encompassed 
with  even  greater  difiiculties  than  the  other;  for  it  has  all  that 
belonged  to  that  in  full  force,  accompanied  by  some  others, 
peculiar  to  itself.  The  tliree  considerations  brought  forward 
above,  and  insisted  on  as  overtlirowing  the  supposition,  that 
Ezra  forged  the  Pentateuch,  are  as  decisive  against  the  sup- 
position, that  it  was  compiled  or  invented  by  the  Jews,  pre- 
viously to  his  coming  to  them.  But,  superadded  to  these 
considerations  are  the  following  ones,  which  are  pertinent 
here,  and  of  invincible  force.  The  returned  Jews  in  Jeru- 
salem had  a  copy  of  the  book  of  the  law,  as  appears  from 
the  prophecies  of  Haggai,^"  which  were  delivered  thirty-six 
years,  before  Ezra  went  up  to  that  city.  But  Ezra,  a  noted 
scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses  in  Babylon,  went  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem, with  the  express  design  of  teaching  the  people  there 
this  very  law  ;f  and  the  copy,  which  he  used,  he  did  not 
receive  from  his  brethren  in  the  holy  city,  but  carried  it  up 
with  him  in  his  hand.;};  If  the  copy  in  jjossession  of  the 
Jews  had  been    forged   or   compiled  by   them,   it   would 

*  Hag.  ii.  11-13.  f  Ez.  vii.  25.  J  Ez.  vii.  14,  25. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  1Y5 

necessarily  have  difiered  from  that  carried  up  by  Ezra.  But 
there  is  not  the  slightest  token  of  any  such  difference,  nor 
any  trace  of  the  conflict,  which  must  have  ensued,  upon  the 
discovery  of  it.  On  the  contrary,  princes,  priests,  Levites, 
and  people  receive  Ezra's  copy  of  the  law,  as  of  unquestion- 
able authority,  and  submit  to  it  without  opposition,  though 
such  submission,  as  we  have  seen,  involved  sacrifices  the 
most  distressing,  on  the  part  of  great  numbei'S  of  the  people, 
many  of  whom  were  of  high  rank  and  authority.  But 
again  :  Seventeen  years  subsequent  to  Ezra's  commission 
from  Artaxerxes  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  Kehemiah  was 
deputed  by  the  same  prince  to  follow  him  as  governor  of 
Judea.*  He  also,  it  is  quite  apparent,  possessed  and  carried 
with  him  a  copy  of  the  law  ot  Moses,  distinct  from  both  the 
othei-s,  and  derived  from  neither,  but  from  an  independent 
source.f  Yet  there  was  no  discrepancy  or  conflict  between 
them.  The  three  copies  appear  to  have  agreed  in  every 
particular.  Ezra,  ISTehemrah,  and  the  princes  of  the  people 
went  on  harmoniously,  as  well  as  zealously,  in  the  work  of 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  reform ; — a  reform  of  great  breadth 
and  thoroughness,  since  it  embraced  the  following  specifi- 
cations : — the  engagement  of  the  peoj^le  in  a  solemn  covenant 
to  walk  in  God's  law,  as  given  by  Moses  ;  the  renunciation 
and  avoidance  of  all  intermarriages  with  idolatrous  nations  ; 
the  rigid  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath ;  the  observance  of 
the  sabbatical  year  and  the  non-exaction  of  debts  therein  ; 
the  payment  of  a  tax  of  a  third  of  a  shekel  yearly  for  the 
service  of  the  temple ;  the  bringing  of  the  first-fruits  of  the 
ground,  of  their  sons,  and  of  their  cattle,  to  the  house  of  the 
•Lord ;  and  the  giving  of  tithes  to  the  priests  and  Levites 
of  all  the  proceeds  of  the  land.:}:  These  details  cover  no 
inconsiderable  part  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  now  have  it ; 
and  the  fact,  that  the  three  independent  copies  of  the  law 
under  consideration  concurred  in  them,  shows  both  that 
*  Neh.  ii.  8.  t  Neh.  i.  7-9.  t  ^^eb.  x.  29-37. 


176  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

those  copies  must  have  had  a  common  source,  and  that 
neither  of  them  could  hare  been  compiled  at  or  subsequentlj 
to  the  time  of  the  first  return  of  the  Jews  out  of  their  cap- 
tivity. Moreover,  it  is  certain,  that,  in  the  time  of  Esther, 
who  became  queen  of  Persia  the  very  year,  in  which  Ezra 
w^as  commissioned  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  the  entire  people 
of  the  Jews,  dispersed  throughout  the  vast  extent  of  the 
Persian  empire,  agreed,  without  controversy  or  any  differ- 
ence of  opinion,  in  acknowledging  one  and  the  same  law ; 
and  this  fact  was  notorious  to  the  heathen  themselves.* 
Tliis  alone  is  a  demonstrative  proof  of  the  existence  of  the 
book  of  the  law,  before  the  dispersion,  in  the  same  form,  as 
it  existed  during  the  continuance  and  at  the  close  of  the 
captivity ;  for,  how  could  any  one  part  of  this  widely  scat- 
tered people  forge  a  code  of  laws,  and  embody  it  in  a  ficti- 
tious or  newly  compiled  histoiy,  and  get  all  the  rest  to 
acknowledge  both,  as  genuine  and  authentic?  But  further 
still :  some  of  the  persons,  present  at  the  laying  of  the 
foundation  of  the  second  temple,  had  seen  the  first  in  all  its 
glory ;  and  tlierefore  must  have  lived  before  the  captivity, 
and  must  have  known  the  laws  and  customs  of  their  nation 
at  that  time.f  Kow,  could  these  persons  have  been  imposed 
upon  by  any  attempt  to  fabricate,  as  the  public  code  of  the 
national  religion  and  government,  a  compilation  till  then 
wholly  unknown  ?  If  the  book,  now  put  forth  as  the  old, 
well  known,  and  genuine  law  of  Moses,  had  been  a  new 
made  code,  with  all  the  history  foisted  in  by  some  daring 
hand,  would  they  not  certainly  have  known,  and  as  certainly 
have  exposed,  with  scorn  and  indignation,  the  fraudulent 
proceeding  ?  There  cannot  be  a  doubt  of  it,  in  any  fiiir  and 
reasonable  mind. 

"Wherefore,  I  must  hold  it  for  proved,  that  the  Pentateuch, 
which  we  now  have,  is  the  same  book  and  in  the  same  form, 
as  the  Pentateuch  of  the  Jews,  previously  to  the  Babylonish 

*  Esth.  iii.  8.  |-  Ez.  iii.  12. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  177 

captivity.     This  brings  us  up  to  nearly  six  bur  dred  years 
before  the  Christian  era. 

A  train  of  reasoning,  not  unlike  the  foregoing,  will  estab- 
lish the  existence  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  its  present  form,  at 
the  time  of  the  separation  of  tlie  tribes  and  the  formation  of 
the  two  kingdoms  of  Judali  and  Israel,  through  the  obstinate 
fatuity  of  the  son  and  successor  of  Solomon.  From  that 
point,  the  interests  of  these  two  kingdoms  lay  in  diverging 
lines  ;  and  we  find  it  to  have  been  the  steady  policy  of  the 
kings  of  Israel  to  alienate  their  people,  as  far  as  possible, 
from  the  religion  and  worship  of  Judah ;  a  policy  adopted 
by  the  very  first  of  these  monarchs,*  and  pursued  by  him 
and  his  successors,  with  unscrupulous  boldness.  To  the 
prosecution  of  this  policy,  the  Pentateuch  interposed  the 
most  formidable  obstacle.  It  set  itself,  in  the  strongest  and 
most  direct  manner,  against  the  design  of  these  sovereigns. 
Now,  on  the  supposition  of  the  truth  of  the  hypothesis, 
which  assigns  a  date  to  the  compilation  of  the  Pentateuch, 
subsequent  to  the  separation  of  the  tribes,  the  kings  of 
Israel  would  certainly  know,  that  the  book  was  not  in  exist- 
ence at  the  time  of  the  separation ;  they  would  certainly 
know  when  and  for  what  intent  it  was  compiled ;  and  they 
and  all  their  people  would  certainly  have  rejected  it,  as  the 
most  barefaced,  clumsy,  and  ridiculous  attempt  at  imposition, 
ever  engendered  in  the  teeming  brain  of  human  folly.  If, 
then,  it  appear,  that  the  Israelitish  monarchs,  and  the  people 
whom  they  ruled,  acknowledged  the  Pentateuch  as  the  com- 
mon code  of  the  whole  nation,  before  the  separation,  such 
acknowledgement,  on  their  part,  must  be  held  to  be  the 
clearest  possible  proof  of  its  existence,  at  the  time  when  that 
event  occurred,  in  the  same  form,  in  which  it  was  found  at 
the  commencement  of  the  captivity.  That  they  did  recognize 
its  genuineness  and  authority,  there  is  evidence  sufficient  to 
satisfy  every  candid  inquirer.     For, 

*  1  Kings  xii.  26-33. 
12 


178  COMINIENTARIES    ON    THE 

In  the  first  place,  if  tliey  opposed  and  rejected  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Pentateuch,  every  trace  of  such  opposition  and 
rejection  has  disappeared  from  the  records  of  history.  As 
such  a  thing  is  scarcely  within  the  range  of  possibilities, 
this  must  be  regarded  as  a  negative  proof,  of  no  inconsider- 
able force.  Secondly,  at  the  very  time  when  the  kings  ot 
Israel  were  seeking  to  undermine  the  influence  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, and  to  destroy  its  authority,  they  studiously 
imitated,  in  their  idolatrous  M^orship,  the  festivals,  fasts, 
sacrifices,  and  various  rites  of  that  very  code.  Thus  it  is 
said  of  Jeroboam,  that  he  "  ordained  a  feast  in  the  eighth 
month  like  unto  the  feast  wdiich  is  in  Judah."*  They  care- 
fully jDreserved  the  forms  of  the  ritual,  while  they  as  care- 
fully sought  to  rob  them  of  all  their  true  power  and  worth. 
Nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  such  a  procedure,  on 
the  part  of  the  politic  princes,  vrho  knew,  that  their  subjects 
had  been  long  accustomed  to  reverence  and  obey  the  code, 
as  of  divine  original ;  nothing  more  unnatural  and  even 
insane,  on  the  supposition,  that  it  was  an  imposition,  flagrant 
in  itself,  and  injurious  to  their  interests.  Thirdly,  an  inci- 
dent occurred  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  wdiicli  not  only 
affords  a  full  testimony  to  the  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch 
itself,  and  the  acknowledged  authority  of  the  laws  contained 
in  it,  but  which  also  incontestibly  proves,  that  the  kingdom 
of  Israel,  not  less  than  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  recognized  it, 
as  containing  the  genuine  and  authoritative  record  of  the  law 
of  Moses,  the  national  code  of  the  whole  Jewish  race.  That 
monarch,  in  his  pious  zeal  for  the  restoration  of  a  pure  wor- 
ship according  to  the  Mosaic  ritual,  with  the  minutest  require- 
ments of  which  he  sedulously  complied,  appointed  a  solemn 
passover,  to  which  he  not  only  invited  his  own  subjects,  but 
made  proclamation  also  "  to  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  and  all 
Israel,  from  Beersheba  unto  Dan,  that  they  should  come  to  the 
house  of  the  Lord  at  Jerusalem,  to  keep  the  passover  unto  the 
•  1  Kings  xii.  32. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  179 

Lord  God  of  Israel."^  In  this  proclamation  he  exhorted  the 
ten  tribes  to  turn  again  to  the  Lord  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob,  and  not  to  trespass  and  be  stiff-necked  as  their 
fathers  were,  but  to  yield  themselves  to  the  Lord,  and  enter 
into  his  sanctuary.f  "  So  the  posts  passed  from  city  to  city, 
through  the  country  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  even  unto 
Zebulun.":}:  Would  any  prince,  not  bereft  of  reason,  have 
ventured  upon  such  a  procedure,  if  the  authority  of  the  code, 
on  which  it  was  founded,  had  not  been  acknowledged  by  the 
persons,  to  whom  the  proclamation  was  made  ?  The  success  of 
the  measure  was  exactly  such  as  might  have  been  anticipated, 
on  the  supposition  of  such  acknowledgement;  but  wholly 
inexplicable,  on  any  other.  Many,  through  an  impiety  and 
contempt,  engendered  by  long  neglect,  mocked  at  the  mes- 
sengers of  Ilezekiah  ;  but  many  others  of  the  revolted  tribes 
"  humbled  themselves  and  came  to  Jerusalem."!  Is  not  this 
a  clear  proof,  that  the  authenticity  and  authority  of  the 
Pentateuch  were  recognized  by  those  tribes  ?  But,  fourthly, 
strong  as  this  argument  is,  there  is  another  still  more 
cogent.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
existed  as  an  independent  state  for  268  years,  at  the  close  of 
which  period  it  was  subverted  by  the  Assyrians,  and  many 
of  the  people  carried  into  captivity.  Tlie  Samaritans  suc- 
ceeded to  the  ten  tribes.  Tliey  were  a  mixed  race,  composed 
partly  of  Israelites,  and  partly  of  foreigners,  whom  the  king 
of  Assyria  had  sent  to  occupy  the  lands  of  those  who  had 
been  removed.  IsTow,  upon  the  supposition,  that  the  ten 
tribes,  during  their  separate  existence,  rejected  the  Penta- 
teuch, what  is  the  state  of  the  case  ?  Why,  that  for  268 
years  the  Israelites  combatted,  as  a  known  forgery,  and 
then  all  at  once  their  descendants  and  successors  received, 
and  ever  afterwards  acknowledged,  as  of  divine  original  and 
authority,  the  code  ^f  another  nation,  between  wliom  and 

*  2  Chr.  XXX.  1.  t  2  Chr.  xxx.  7,  8. 

J  2  Chr.  xxx.  10.  3  2  Chr.  xxx.  10,  11. 


ISO  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

tliemseives,  bcdi  before  and  after  tlie  reception  of  it,  tlie 
bitterist  enmity  always  existed ;  and  yet,  that  every  trace  of 
tbeir  original  and  long  continued  rejection  of  the  code  has 
faded  from  the  memory  of  mankind,  and  been  obliterated 
from  the  records  of  history.  He  who  can  believe  that,  is 
prepared  to  swallow  the  greatest  conceival)le  absurdities, 
provided  only  they  be  thought  to  impugn  and  weaken  the 
authority  of  divine  revelation. 

"Wherefore,  I  conceive  it  to  be  proved,  that  the  Pentateuch 
existed,  in  its  present  form,  at  the  separation  of  the  tribes  and 
the  formation  of  the  two  independent  kingdoms  of  Judah  and 
Israel,  which  event  happened  979  years  before  the  birth  of 
our  Savior. 

Let  us  advance  a  step  higher.  What  reason  is  there  to  be- 
lieve, that  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  is  at  least  as 
old  as  the  establishment  of  kingly  government  among  the 
Hebrews  ?  Dean  Graves  has  suggested  an  argument  in  sup- 
port of  this  view,  which  seems  to  carry  with  it  an  unanswer- 
able force.*  The  argument  is,  that  the  civil  form  of  govern- 
ment, exhibited  in  the  Pentateuch,  is  not  regal.  So  far  from 
this,  it  notices  the  regal  form  as  an  innovation,  which  should 
be  introduced  in  an  age  subsequent  to  the  establishment  of 
the  original  polity ;  an  innovation,  too,  far  from  being  pleas- 
ing to  God.  But  further  and  stronger  still :  The  code  of  the 
Pentateucli  imposed  numerous  restraints  upon  the  kings, 
which  abridged  their  prerogative,  curbed  their  power,  and  put 
fetters  upon  their  ambition.  Moreover,  it  required,  that  the 
reigning  sovereign  should  keep  always  by  him  a  copy  of  the 
law,  imposing  these  stern  and  irksome  restraints ;  that  he 
should  consult  it  daily  ;  and  that  he  should  make  it  the  steady 
rule  of  his  private  life  and  his  public  administration.!  Now, 
if  the  Pentateuch  was  forged  or  compiled,  after  the  establish- 
ment of  the  regal  form  of  government  and  during  its  contin- 
aance,  this  must  have  been  done,  either,  first,  by  the  king 
•  On  the  Pent.,  Pt.  1,  Lect.  1.  f  Deut.  xvii.  16,  seq. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  181 

himself,  or  at  bis  instigation  ;  or,  secondly,  by  some  person, 
or  persons,  wbo  probably  wished  to  weaken  his  authority,  and 
curb  his  ambition.  It  is  impossible,  that  the  latter  supposi- 
tion should  be  true,  for  whoever  happened  to  be  king  at  the 
time,  when  the  fabrication  was  made,  would  certainly  know 
the  real  character  of  the  writing ;  and  would,  with  equal  cer- 
tainty, reject  it.  And  the  former  supposition  is  so  improba- 
ble, that  it  cannot  for  a  moment  be  admitted,  without  direct 
and  in-efragable  proof  of  its  truth  ;  for  what  king  ever  did,  or 
would,  make  a  fictitious  code  of  laws,  which  condemned  the 
kingly  form  of  government,  which  rebuked  and  denounced 
all  regal  tyranny,  and  which  confined  the  royal  prerogative 
within  the  narrowest  compass  compatible  even  with  the  name 
of  king  ?  This  is  an  improbability  so  great,  that  it  may  well 
be  regarded  as  amounting  to  a  moral  impossibility.  This  is 
a  decisive  answer  to  the  argument  of  those  who  hold,  that 
the  Pentateuch  was  first  compiled  in  the  reign  and  by  the 
authority  of  kiffg  Josiah.  It  is  equally  decisive  against  an- 
other suspicion,  entertained  by  some,  that  Samuel  was  the 
author  of  it.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that,  when  the  people 
asked  a  king  of  Samuel,  he  opposed  their  demand,  on  the 
ground,  that  the  appointment  of  a  man  to  be  king  would  be 
a  rejection  of  Jehovah  as  their  sovereign ;  he  painted,  in 
vivid  colors,  the  oppressions,  to  which  they  would  be  subject- 
ed, under  the  regal  government ;  he  told  them,  that  they  were 
rushing  into  a  servitude,  which  would  prove  intolerably  bur- 
densome ;  he  warned  them  to  desist  in  time,  for  that  they 
would  assuredly  repent  of  their  rashness  ;  and,  when  he  found 
all  his  remonstrances  unavailing,  he  labored  to  impose  re- 
straints upon  the  future  sovereigns,  which  would  at  least  mi- 
tigate, if  they  did  not  avert,  the  mischiefs,  which  he  appre- 
hended from  their  rule.*  Is  it  credible,  that  Samuel  would 
have  ventured  upon  such  a  course,  if  he  had  not  felt  himself 
entrenched  behind  the  authority  of  a  code,  revered  by  the 
*  1  Sam.  viii.  11-18. 


182  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

people  SOL  the  work  of  their  ancient  lawgiver  ?  Or,  if  be  had 
fabricated  the  Pentateuch,  would  not  the  imposition  have 
been  detected  bj  Saul,  who  was  at  bitter  enmity  with  the 
prophet  during  a  great  part  of  his  reign,  and  was  a  man  by 
no  means  wanting  in  the  requisite  ability  ?  And  still  more, 
would  not  Solomon,  the  monarch  famed  in  every  age  and  re- 
gion of  the  world  for  his  wisdom  and  sagacity,  have  penetra- 
ted and  exposed  the  odious  cheat ;  Solomon,  who,  in  so  many 
instances,  flagrantly  violated  the  law  of  Moses,  and  must  have 
felt  his  fame  wounded  by  its  stern  and  indignant  rebuke  ?* 

Wherefore,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt,  and  every  reason  to 
believe,  that  the  Pentateuch  existed  in  its  present  form,  prior 
to  the  establishment  of  kingly  government  among  the  He- 
brews. 

AVe  Lave  now  reached  a  very  high  antiquity  in  our  argu- 
ment, and  are  come  within  400  years  of  the  foundation  of  the 
Hebrew  state,  according  to  the  chronology  of  Usher,  or  with- 
in 500  year.j,  according  to  that  of  Josephus,  Jackson,  and 
Eussel.f  Throughout  all  this  period,  the  peculiar  polity,  es- 
tablished by  Moses,  was  in  force.  No  occasion  arose  for  the 
invention  or  compilation  of  a  new  code.  No  special  interest 
can  be  conceived,  likely  to  be  promoted  by  such  a  fabrication. 
And  no  man,  or  body  of  men,  appears  upon  the  stage,  of  an 
influence  and  authority  sufflcient  to  ensure  its  reception 
among  the  people.  It  is  true,  that  during  this  period  the  Is- 
raelites often  transgressed  the  law,  and  thereby  brought  upon 
themselves  grievous  calamities ;  but  they  as  often  repented 
of  their  sin,  owned  the  justice  of  their  punishment,  and  re- 
turned to  their  former  obedience.  Would  a  fabricated  code 
be  likely  to  secure  such  respect  and  submission  ?  It  cannot 
be  pretended.  "That  prosperity  should  corrupt  a  nation,  is 
credible ;  that  calamity  should  rouse  them  to  repentance,  is 
also  credible  ;  bui  that  they  should  ascribe  their  calamities  to 
the  violation  of  a  law,  whose  authority  they  had  never  ac- 

*  Graves  on  Pent.  Ft.  1,  Lect.  1.  f  Smith's  Ileb.  People,  C.  3. 


LAWS    OF   TILE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  183 

knovi  ledged,  and  that,  in  the  midst  of  vice  and  corruption, 
a  new  code  should  be  fabricated,  condemning  that  vice  and 
corruption,  and  be  imposed  upon  the  nation  as  the  known 
law  of  their  fathers,  without  opj)osition,  is  surelj  most  im- 
probable and  strange."* 

Thus  have  we  traced  back  the  Pentateuch,  all  along  the 
stream  of  history,  to  the  age  of  Moses  himself.  From  these 
facts  and  reasonings,  the  conclusion  seems  fully  warranted, 
that  such  as  we  have  it  now,  such  it  came  from  the  hand  of 
that  illustrious  law  giver,  historian,  and  prophet. 

But  strong  as  the  foregoing  proofs  are,  they  do  not  con- 
stitute the  whole  strength  of  even  the  external  evidence. 
The  Pentateuch  is  not  the  only  book  belonging  to  the  sacred 
literature  of  the  Jews.  There  are  numerous  other  tracts, 
some  of  them  of  no  inconsiderable  compass,  w^ritten  by  a 
great  number  of  authors,  embracing  a  great  variety  of  sub- 
jects, and  composed  at  different  times  along  a  tract  of  more 
than  a  thousand  years,  reaching  from  Moses  to  Malachi. 
IS'ow  all  these  manifold  writings  are  crowded  with  allusions, 
quotations,  and  abridged  histories,  taken  out  of  the  Penta- 
teuch.f  These  references  and  citations  are  thickly  scattered 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  There  is  hardly 
one  important  statement  in  the  Pentateuch,  there  is  scarcely 
a  chapter  from  the  beginning  of  Genesis  to  the  end  of 
Deuteronomy,  which  is  not  in  this  manner  referred  to  or 
cited.  Many  of  the  places  are  mentioned  very  often,  and 
the  citations  are  of  great  length,  and  embrace  a  great 
number  of  minute  details.  The  references  are  to  the 
creation ;  the  tirst  mai-riage ;  man's  dominion  over  the 
creatures;  the  grant  of  herbs  and  jDlants  for  meat;  the 
garden  of  Eden ;  the  violation  of  the  covenant ;  the  curse 
denounced  against  Adam  and  the  serpent;  the  flood; 
Noah's  character;  the  residence  of  the  ancestors  of  the 
Jews  beyond  the  Euphrates  ;  numerous  particulars  in  the 

*  Graves  ou  Pent.  Pt  1   Lect.  1.    f  Edwards's  Works,  v.  9.  pp.  132,  seqq. 


184  COMMENTARIES  ON  THE 

lives  of  Abraham  and  the  other  patn'ai-chs  ;  Melchizedek  as 
both  a  king  and  a  priest  of  the  true  God  ;  the  great  fertility 
of  the  land  of  Sodom,  and  the  great  wickedness  of  the  inha- 
bitants ;  the  sadden  destruction  by  fire  of  the  cities  of  the 
plain  ;  the  two  wives  of  Jacob  as  building  the  house  of  Israel ; 
all  the  leading  events  in  the  life  of  Joseph  ;  Tamar's  bearing 
Pharez  to  Judah  ;  the  famine  that  compelled  Israel  and  his 
family  to  seek  bread  in  Egypt;  the  Israelites  multiplying 
there,  and  the  Egyptians  dealing  subtilly  with  them  ;  their 
bondage  in  Egypt ;  the  kind  of  service  required  of  them  ; 
the  circumstances  attending  their  egress  out  of  Egypt,  their 
wanderings  in  the  wilderness,  and  their  settlement  in  the  land 
of  Canaan,  with  hardly  a  single  exception ;  and  other  parti- 
culars recorded  in  the  Pentateuch,  too  numerous  to  specify.* 
Now,  upon  this  state  of  the  case  I  argue  thus  :  Here  we 
have  innumerable  references  to  the  facts  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch  ;  references  made  by  many  different  writers,  in 
may  different  ages.  Hence  the  Israelitish  nation  must  have 
had,  from  the  origin  of  their  commonwealth,  a  great,  stand- 
ing, and  authoritative  record  of  these  facts  ;  and  this  record 
must  have  been  the  Pentateuch  itself  For,  if  there  had 
been  no  such  history  to  serve  as  the  common  guide  of  all 
these  authors,  it  must  have  been  morally  impossible  for  them, 
in  such  a  vast  number  of  allusions  and  quotations,  and  these 
extending  to  such  a  multitude  of  minute  details,  to  avoid  in- 
numerable inconsistencies  with  each  other.  And,  even  if  we 
may  suppose  the  existence  of  the  tracts  independently  of  the 
history,  can  we  believe  that  the  wit  of  man  is  equal  to  the  task 
of  framing  a  fictitious  history,  in  which  all  these  manifold 
references,  citations,  and  rehearsals,  dispersed  through  the 
works  of  so  many  authors,  writing  for  so  many  different  objects, 
and  in  so  many  different  styles  and  ages,  should  be  introduced 

*  See  these  references  drawn  out  in  full,  covering  many  pages  in  the  9tli 
volume  of  President  Edwards's  Works,  in  his  Notes  on  the  Bible,  pp  133  ■ 
142. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  185 

and  harmonized  without  a  single  jar,  and  with  such  an  air  of 
verisimilitude  and  originality,  that  all  the  world  should  mis- 
take the  fabrication  as  the  common  fountain  and  source  of 
the  very  books,  out  of  which  it  was  formed  ?  Can  there  be 
any  absurdity  equal  to  the  absurdity  of  such  a  supposition  ? 
Consider!  "All  these  multiplied  and  various  compositions 
unite  in  presupposing  the  existence  and  the  truth  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, and  uniformly  refer  to  and  quote  it  as  the  only  true  and 
genuine  account  of  the  ancient  history  and  known  laws  of  the 
Jews.  They  recite  its  facts  ;  they  refer  to  its  laws  ;  they  cele- 
brate its  author ;  they  appeal  to  the  people,  to  the  kings,  to 
the  priests ;  they  rebuke  and  threaten  them  for  neglecting  the 
law  of  Moses,  as  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  and,  what  is 
most  decisive,  they  never  once  give  the  least  hint  of  any  rival 
law,  of  any  new  compilation,  of  any  doubt  as  to  its  authenti- 
city."* 

Such  is  the  argument,  embodying  the  external  historical 
proofs  of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 
The  sum  is  this.  The  evidence  for  the  existence  of  this  writ- 
ing, all  along  down  from  the  return  of  the  Jews  out  of  capti- 
vity to  the  present  time  is  so  strong,  that  none  dispute  it.  At 
this  point  we  enter  upon  debated  territory.  Yet  the  Penta- 
teuch could  not  have  been  compiled  at  this  time,  but  must 
have  been  the  same  writing,  which  the  Jews  received  as  the 
law  of  Moses  before  the  captivity,  because  it  was  evidently 
well  known  both  to  Jews  and  heathen  during  the  captivity ; 
because  the  law  enforced  by  Ezra  required  sacrilices  of  the 
people,  to  which  they  would  never  have  submitted  but  in  obe- 
dience to  a  code  of  established  and  unquestionable  authority; 
because  many  persons,  who  were  present  at  the  laying  of  the 
foundation  of  the  second  temple,  had  seen  the  first,  and  must 
have  known  the  law  then  in  use,  and  therefore  could  and 
would  have  detected  and  exposed  a  fabricated  code  ;  because 
three  distinct  copies  of  the  writing  can  be  traced,  manifestly 
*  Graves  on  Pent.  Pt.  1,  Lect.  1. 


186  COMMENT AEIES    ON   THE 

not  borrowed  from  each  other,  yet  all  agreeing  in  their  state- 
ments ;  and  because  the  Samaritans,  the  bitter  enemies  of  the 
Jews,  as  well  before  as  after  the  captivity,  acknowledged  it 
as  of  divine  original  and  authority.  Again,  our  copy  of  the 
Pentateuch  must  have  existed  prior  to  the  division  of  the 
tribes  into  the  separate  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah,  be- 
cause the  monarchs  and  people  of  the  former,  not  less  than 
those  of  the  latter,  owned  its  authority  as  the  code  of  the 
whole  Jewish  race  before  that  event,  notwithstanding  it  waa 
repugnant  to  their  interests  as  an  independent  state,  and  in- 
terposed the  greatest  obstacle  to  the  peculiar  policy,  adopted 
from  the  first  and  steadily  pursued  to  the  end  by  the  Israelit- 
ish  kings.  Further,  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it,  must  have 
preceded  the  establishment  of  monarchy  among  the  Hebrews, 
because  it  not  only  does  not  exhibit  a  regal  form  of  govern- 
ment, but  expressly  opposes  that  description  of  polity,  notic- 
ing it  as  an  innovaton  that  would  arise  in  the  progress  of 
ages,  and  seeking,  by  various  admirable  enactments,  to  coun- 
teract its  innate  tendencies  to  despotism  and  tyranny.  And 
further  still,  this  venerable  writing  must  be  coeval  with  the 
origin  of  the  Hebrew  state,  because,  during  the  interval 
which  elapsed  between  the  first  formation  of  the  government 
and  the  establishment  of  monarchy,  no  change  was  made  in 
the  form  of  polity,  no  occasion  arose  for  fabricating  a  code, 
no  conceivable  interest  could  be  promoted  by  such  a  proce- 
dure, and  no  man  or  body  of  men  appear  to  have  possessed 
an  influence  sufficiently  commanding  to  give  currency  to  the 
imposition.  Superadded  to  all  these  considerations,  is  the 
still  more  forcible  fact,  that  a  long  catalogue  of  Jewish  writers, 
stretching  from  the  age  of  Moses  himself  down  to  the  birth 
of  Christ,  have  acknowledged  and  cited  the  Pentateuch,  in 
every  possible  form  of  acknowledgement  and  citation,  as  the 
true  and  authentic  history  and  code  of  their  nation  ;  and  that, 
among  the  many  disputes  and  differences  of  opinion  which 
the  Jews  have  had  about  the  Mosaic  law,  there  never  was 


Laws   of   the   AJSTCIENT   HEBREWS.  187 

any  such  dispute  or  difference  as  this,  whether  Moses  was  the 
author  of  the  writing,  or  whether  it  contained  a  credible  ac- 
count of  the  foundation  and  early  annals  of  their  state  ;  even 
the  Sadducees,  learned  men  and  free-thinkers,  who  rejected  all 
the  other  books  held  sacred  by  their  countrymen,  acknow- 
ledging the  Pentateuch  as  genuine  and  divine.  The  world 
may  be  challenged  to  produce  a  chain  of  evidence,  of  equal 
strength,  in  support  of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of 
any  other  ancient  writing. 

Kor  let  it  be  objected,  that  the  Pentateuch  lacks  confirma- 
tion from  contemporaneous  profane  authors.  If  any  such  ex- 
isted, their  writings  have  long  since  perished.  There  is  no 
contemporary  literature.  Can  we  look  for  such  testimony 
from  the  Greeks  ?  Thucydides*  has  declared,  that  even  re- 
specting his  own  countrymen  he  could  find  no  authentic 
records,  prior  to  the  Peloponesian  war.  Can  we  expect  it 
from  the  Romans  ?  They  had  scarcely  begun  to  be  a  people, 
when  the  empire  of  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  and  the  nation 
reduced  to  captivity.  Not  a  fragment  of  any  contemporane- 
ous record  has  floated  down  the  stream  of  time.  Every  other 
chronicle  has  been  swallowed  up  and  lost  in  the  gulf  of  ages. 
Centuries  elapsed  after  the  exodus  of  Israel,  before  Homer, 
or  Hesiod,  or  Manetho,  or  Berous,  or  even  Sanchoniathon 
wrote.  There  are,  therefore,  no  profane  histories  with  which 
to  compare  the  Pentateuch.  Its  credibility  must  stand  or 
fall,  on  evidence  entirely  independent  of  either  favoring  or 
opposing  testimony  of  this  kind.  Yet  such  profane  testimony 
as  the  nature  of  the  case  admits,  we  have  in  several  pagan 
authors.  Diodorus  Siculus,  Strabo,  Longinus,  Juvenal,  Taci- 
tus, and  others,  mention  Moses  by  name,  and  quote  from  his 
writings,  just  as  we  appeal  to  any  of  these  authors  and  their 
works. 

There  is  another  species  of  external  testimony  to  the  genu- 
ineness and  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch,  by  which  these 
*  Lib.  1. 


188  CCMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

qualities,  as  pertaining  to  that  writing,  may  be  proved  with 
equal  certainty.  I  refer  to  the  argument  from  public  monu- 
ments and  actions.  The  strongest  species  of  historical  evi- 
dence lies  in  commemorative  rites  and  festivals.  ISTo  ingenu- 
ity of  a  false  logic,  no  mystification  of  an  insane  philosoj)hy, 
no  bitterness  of  malignity  against  unpalatable  truths,  no  de- 
moniac desire  to  overturn  men's  dearest  hopes  and  asj^ira- 
tions,  can  either  break  or  evade  its  force. 

The  nature  and  force  of  this  evidence  may  be  illustrated  in 
an  example  taken  from  our  own  history.  On  the  4th  day  of 
July,  1776,  the  British  colonies  of  North  America  declared 
themselves  free  and  independent  States.  Ever  since  that 
event,  an  annual  festival  has  been  observed  to  keep  alive  the 
memory  of  it  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  the  nation.  Let  us 
suppose  the  declaration  of  independence  not  to  have  been 
made,  nor  a  separation  from  Great  Britain  effected,  nor  a  dis- 
tinct government  established,  at  that  time.  Could  the  festi- 
val have  been  instituted  then  ?  Eeason  and  common  sense 
reply : — "  It  is  impossible." 

Let  it  be  supposed  then,  secondly,  that  these  States  have 
continued  to  our  day  in  the  condition  of  British  colonies,  and 
that  some  one  starts  up  on  the  morning  of  the  4th  of  July, 
1852,  and  summons  the  people  to  the  celebration  of  the  na- 
tional jubilee,  instituted,  according  to  his  proclamation, 
seventy -six  years  before,  and  ever  since  faithfully  observed, 
to  commemorate  an  event,  which  by  the  hypothesis,  never 
occurred,  viz. :  the  resolution  of  our  forefathers  to  shake  off 
the  yoke  of  British  tyranny,  and  their  subsequent  victory 
over  British  valor?  Would  any  body  believe  him,  or  pay 
the  least  attention  to  his  summons  ?  Such  an  hypothesis  would, 
if  possible,  be  more  absurd  than  the  former.  Let  a  man 
make  such  an  attempt  with  respect  to  Austria  or  Russia.  Let 
him  undertake  to  persuade  the  people  of  those  countries,  that 
a  hundred  years  ago  they  raised  the  standard  of  revolution, 
dethroned  their  sovereigns,  and  replaced  their  monarchical 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBEEWS.  189 

with  democratic  institutions,  and  that  ever  since,  they  had 
celebrated  those  vast  achievements  by  commemorative  festi- 
vals renewed  from  year  to  year.  What  would  be  the  issue  of 
such  an  attempt?  The  author  of  it  would  either  be  laughed 
at  as  a  harmless  fool,  or  pitied  as  a  wretched  maniac.  No 
words  could  set  the  absurdity  of  it  in  a  more  glaring  light, 
than  the  very  terms  in  which  the  supposition  itself  must  be 
made. 

It  is,  then,  Impossible,  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  a  na- 
tional commemorative  festival  should  ever  arise,  except  upon 
a  basis  of  truth.  Such  an  institution  presupposes,  involves, 
and  demonstrates  the  reality  of  the  events,  which  it  commem- 
orates. 

"Were  there,  then,  any  public  monuments  among  the  Jews, 
any  national  commemorative  actions,  coeval  with  the  origin 
of  the  Hebrew  State,  and  des  ned  to  preserve  the  memory 
of  the  events  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch  ?  Yes,  such  public 
monuments  and  actions  there  were  in  great  number.  For 
example,  the  passover  ;  the  pentecost;  the  feast  of  tabernacles; 
the  dedication  of  the  first-born,  both  man  and  beast ;  the 
consecration  of  one  entire  tribe  to  minister  in  holy  things ; 
Aaron's  rod  that  budded  ;  the  pot  of  manna ;  the  brazen  ser- 
pent ;  the  pile  of  stones  at  Gilgal ;  the  day  of  annual  atonement ; 
the  new  moons;  the  sabbaths;  and  even  the  daily  sacrifices. 
So  long,  therefore,  as  each  returning  vernal  equinox  brings 
anew  into  requisition  the  unleavened  bread,  so  long  as  the 
passover,  the  pentecost,  and  the  day  of  atonement  continue  to 
be  celebrated  by  the  scattered  remnant  of  Jacob's  sons ;  so 
long,  indeed,  as  there  shall  remain  historical  evidence  of  the 
past  existence  of  these  and  other  Jewish  festivals  and  monu- 
ments ; — so  long  may  we  be  sure  of  the  reality  of  the  events 
which  they  commemorate.  So  long  may  we  be  sure  that 
the  Israelites  were  slaves  in  Egypt,  and  that  they  were  deliy- 
ered  by  the  miraculous  exertion  of  an  almighty  power.  So 
long  may  we  be  sure,  that  God  divided  the  Ked  Sea  for  their 


190  COMMENT AKIES   ON   THE 

accommodation  ;  that  he  spake  the  law  in  thunder  from  Si- 
nai ;  that  for  forty  years  he  led  the  people  by  a  cloudy  and 
fiery  pillar,  the  never-failing  symbol  of  his  presence  ;  that  he 
satisfied  their  hunger  with  bread  that  nightly  fell  around 
their  camp,  the  product  of  his  creative  energy ;  that  he  pre- 
served from  decay  the  garments  that  covered  their  nakedness  ; 
that  he  parted  the  waters  of  Jordan  and  led  them  dry-shod 
over  its  pebbly  bottom  ;  and  that  he  finally  planted  them  se- 
curely on  the  territories  of  their  enemies  and  his,  in  the  land 
that  he  had  promised  to  their  fathers.  On  the  national  mon- 
uments and  festivals  of  commemoration,  we  may  plant  our 
faith  in  the  truth  and  authority  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  upon  an 
impregnable  fortress ;  and  the  storms  of  an  infidel  philosophy 
may  spend  their  rage  upon  us  in  vain. 

Having  thus  considered  the  two  branches  of  external  evi- 
dence, the  testimony  of  history  and  the  testimony  of  monu- 
ments, I  pass  to  an  examination  of  the  internal  evidence  in 
favor  of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  Mosaic  record. 
Let  it  be  observed  here,  in  passing,  that  Moses  was  every  way 
qualified  to  write  the  history  of  the  Pentateuch.  He  was,  as 
we  have  seen  in  the  second  chaj^ter  of  this  book,  a  man  of  solid 
intellect,  acute  perceptions,  calm  judgment,  great  learning, 
unparalleled  disinterestedness,  and  much  experience  in  public 
afiairs.  In  regard  to  every  thing  related  in  the  last  four  books 
of  the  Pentateuch,  his  knowledge  was  ample  and  exact,  siuce 
he  was  liimself  a  chief  actor  in  the  transactions,  which  he  re- 
cords. The  only  doubt  that  can  arise,  as  to  the  fullness  of  his 
information,  relates  to  the  events  of  former  times,  contained 
in  the  book  of  Genesis.  Here,  setting  aside  divine  revelation, 
and  insisting  only  on  what  may  be  demanded  in  an  unin- 
spired historian,  Moses  had  sources  of  information  more  di- 
rect, copious,  and  reliable  tlian  were  open  to  the  most  learned 
of  his  contemporaries  in  other  nations,  not  excepting  the 
Egyptians  themselves.  Lamech,  the  fother  of  Noah,  was  fifty- 
six  years  contemporary  with  Adam,  and  Noah's  son,  Shem, 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  191 

survived  to  the  time  of  Abraham.  Thus  it  appears,  that  this 
patriarch  received,  or  might  receive,  whatever  knowledge 
Adam  conveyed  to  his  posterity,  through  only  three  interme- 
diate links.  From  his  time,  there  was  an  unmixed  lineal  de- 
scent from  father  to  son,  in  the  Jewish  nation,  and  consequently 
an  unbroken  tradition  of  former  times.  The  chief  cause  of 
the  confusion  and  uncertainty  in  thetraditions  of  other  nations, 
was  the  frequent  intermixture  of  families  and  races.  But  di- 
vine providence,  as  if  purposely  to  satisfy  mankind  of  the  ca- 
pacity of  the  Jewish  nation  to  preserve  the  tradition  of  the 
first  ages  entire,  prohibited  their  mixture  with  the  peoj^le  of 
other  nations.  From  the  time  of  Abraham,  then,  to  that  of 
Moses,  how  easily  and  naturally  might  the  general  tradition 
of  the  ancient  history  be  preserved  pure  and  authentic,  when 
the  families,  in  which  the  tradition  was  lodged,  all  belonged 
to  the  same  nation,  and  were  united  by  the  bond  of  a  common 
religion,  and  for  a  considerable  part  of  the  time  by  the 
scarcely  less  powerful  tie  of  a  common  adversity. 

The  first  internal  proof  of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  drawn  from  the  nature  of  its  contents. 
This  writing  is  not  a  mere  history,  but  contains  the  entire 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  code  of  the  Jews  ;  it  was  the  grand  and 
sacred  rule,  the  constitution  and  foundation  of  their  State. 
And,  so  far  as  it  is  historical  in  its  character,  the  series  of 
events,  which  it  records,  is  by  no  means  of  the  common  order  ; 
neither  did  the  events  happen  thousands  of  years  before  the 
time  of  Moses ;  nor  yet  were  they  such,  that  his  countrymen 
would  be  likely  to  feel  little  or  no  interest  in  them,  other  than 
the  interest  of  mere  curiosity.  Quite  the  reverse  of  this  was 
the  true  state  of  the  case.  The  facts  themselves  were  most 
extraordinary  and  conspicuous;  they  happened,  for  the  most 
part,  under  the  immediate  observation  of  the  persons  to  whom 
the  relation  was  addressed ;  and  they  were  of  the  deepest 
moment,  both  to  the  nation  at  large  and  to  every  individual 
in  it.     Now,  if  the  Pentateuch  is  not  what  it  purports  to  be, 


192  coamENTAniES  on  the 

either  it  is  a  fictitious  narrative  and  code,  forged  bj  Moses 
himself,  or  it  was  compiled  and  palmed  upon  the  nation  as 
his,  in  a  subsequent  age.  Let  it^  be  considered,  then,  how 
strange,  how  public,  and  how  momentous  the  main  facts  nar- 
rated in  the  Pentateuch  were,  afiecting  every  order  in  the 
State,  and  every  interest  of  society.  And  let  it  be  considered, 
further,  how  constantly  Moses  appeals  for  the  truth  of  his  re- 
lations, to  the  personal  knowledge  of  those  whom  he  addresses. 
"  your  eyes  have  seen  all  these  things,"  is  the  confident  tone 
in  which  he  speaks  to  his  countrymen,  and  challenges  a  de- 
nial of  his  statements. 

Suppose  these  relations  to  be  false ;  could  Moses,  by  any 
possibility,  have  induced  his  countrymen  to  believe  that  they 
were  true  ?  Could  he  have  made  them  believe,  that  they 
had  all  been  slaves  in  Egypt,  and  that  a  royal  edict  of  destruc- 
tion had  been  issued  against  their  male  infants,  if  they  had 
never  experienced  the  bitterness  of  servitude,  nor  felt  the 
pangs,  occasioned  by  the  cruel  mandate?  Could  he  have 
gained  any  credit  to  the  statement,  that  they  had  wrought  at 
making  bricks  and  building  treasure-cities  in  Egypt,  if  they 
had  never  groaned  under  the  tyranny,  which  imposed  these 
tasks  upon  them  ?  Could  he  have  persuaded  them,  that  the 
first-born  of  the  Egyptians  had  all  been  slain  in  a  night,  in 
their  very  presence,  as  it  were,  if  no  voice  of  parental  lament- 
ation, consequent  thereupon,  had  ever  reached  their  ears  ? 
Could  he  have  made  them  believe,  that  the  Eed  Sea  had 
opened  to  afford  them  a  passage,  if  its  waters  had  opposed  an 
invincible  barrier  to  their  progress  ?  Could  he  have  pro- 
duced in  them  the  conviction  that  the  law  of  God  had,  in 
their  presence,  been  published  in  an  audible  voice,  from  the 
summit  of  the  burning  mountain,  if  they  had  never  seen  the 
flashes,  nor  heard  the  thunders  that  issued  from  the  thick 
darkness  that  enveloped  it  ?  Could  he  have  induced  the  be- 
lief, that  the  violation  of  that  law  had  been  punished  with 
desolating  plagues,  if  none  of  all  their  company  had  perished 


LAWS   OF   THE   A^^CIENT   HEBREWS.  193 

by  sucli  a  visitation  ?  Could  he  have  persuaded  them,  that, 
during  all  their  wanderings  and  encampments  in  the  wilder- 
ness, a  miraculous  cloud  had  covered  them  by  day,  and  a  mi- 
raculous fire  had  illuminated  their  dwellings  by  night,  if  they 
had  experienced  neither  the  cooling  shelter  of  the  one,  nor 
the  pleasant  companionship  of  the  other?  Could  he  have 
made  them  believe,  that  for  forty  years  they  had  been  fed  with 
manna,  which  fell  around  their  camp,  while  in  reality  they 
had  eaten  nothing  of  the  kind  ? 

If  we  can  suppose  an  effrontery,  sufficient  to  publish  such 
a  stupendous  series  of  falsehoods,  possible,  and  Moses  to  have 
been  guilty  of  it,  could  he  have  escaped  the  punishment, 
which  a  conduct,  unparalleled  in  guilt  and  folly,  would  have 
richly  deserved  ?  "Were  not  the  contemporaries  of  Moses 
prone  to  transgress  his  laws?  Did  they  not  often  fall  into 
idolatry?  Had  there  been  the  least  suspicion  of  impost-ure  in 
his  writings,  would  the  ringleaders  in  these  revolts  have  de- 
clined so  excellent  a  plea  for  their  apostasies?  Would  not 
the  charge  of  forgery,  made  good  against  Moses,  have  afford- 
ed a  solid  ground  for  the  rebellion  of  Korah  and  his  company  ? 
In  short,  is  it  to  be  imagined  that,  when  there  were  so  many 
envious  of  his  eminent  position,  and  ready  with  the  charge, 
that  he  "took  too  much  upon  him,"  Moses  would  have  adven- 
tured any  thing  into  the  public  records,  which  was  not  indis- 
putably true  ?  Surely,  the  man  who  can  digest  such  a  mass 
of  absurdities,  need  never  again  open  his  lips  to  ridicule  the 
credulity  of  those  who  believe,  with  the  magicians  of  Egypt, 
that  they  see  the  finger  of  God  in  the  wonders  above  detailed, 
and  hear  the  voice  of  God's  messenger  in  the  utterances  of 
the  Hebrew  prophet  and  lawgiver. 

These  considerations  make  it  certain,  that  Moses  himself 
could  not  have  palmed  upon  his  countrymen  a  fictitious  his- 
tory and  a  forged  code  of  laws.  The  fabrication,  therefore, 
if  the  Pentateuch  be  a  fabrication,  must  belong  to  an  age  sub- 
sequent to  that  of  Moses.  Let  us  assume  this  hypothesis,  and 
13 


194  COilMENTARIES    ON   THE 

subject  it  to  the  test  of  examination.  Let  us  see  whether  it  is 
a  probable  supposition,  or  whether,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  not 
encompassed  with  absurdities  and  impossibilities. 

It  is  acknowledged,  that  forged  writings  have  been  repeat- 
edly palmed  upon  the  world  ;  and,  in  some  instances,  with 
temporary  success.  It  is  impossible  to  say,  that  in  no  case 
has  the  design  completely  succeeded.  But  it  is  so  difficult  to 
secure  a  perfect  verisimilitude ;  it  is  so  hard  to  avoid  having 
some  allusion,  date,  or  characteristic  circumstance,  nay,  many 
such,  out  of  joint  with  the  times,  at  which  the  forgery  is 
placed  ;  it  is  so  almost  impossible  to  conceal  all  traces  of  the 
particular  design  of  the  fabrication  ;  and  there  have  been  so 
many  instances  of  detection,  as  to  render  it  probable,  that  no 
imposition  of  this  kind  has  ultimately  eluded  discovery  and 
exposure.  It  is,  besides,  a  consideration  of  no  little  force 
here,  that  forged  writings  have  usually  been  of  such  a  nature 
as  not  materially  to  affect  the  interests  of  mankind ; — mere 
literary  productions,  under  the  venerable  name  of  some  an^ 
cient  author.  But  the  Pentateuch,  it  must  be  remembered, 
is  a  history  of  events  the  most  extraordinary  and  important ; 
and  not  only  so,  but  it  exhibits  also  a  constitution  of  civil  go- 
vernment, and  a  complete  body  of  ecclesiastical  and  munici- 
pal laws. 

Now,  by  the  hypothesis  which  we  have  assumed  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  this  writing,  with  all  its  history,  laws,  con- 
stitutions, and  minute  and  endless  regulations,  relating  to  per- 
sons, property,  morals,  crimes,  sacrifices,  public  worship,  and 
all  the  diversified  interests  of  society,  is  a  forgery,  invented 
and  compiled  in  an  age  posterior  to  that  of  Moses,  foisted 
upon  the  Jews  as  the  authentic  and  genuine  work  of  that 
lawgiver,  and  so  universally  received,  honored,  and  obeyed  as 
such,  by  the  Jewish  nation,  that  no  record,  tradition,  frag- 
ment, or  vestige  of  whatever  kind,  of  any  other  law,  is  now 
in  being ;  and  the  memory  of  such  prior  and  different  code, 


LAWS   OF   TirC   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  195 

if  it  ever  existed,  has  entirely  faded  and  disappeared  from  tLe 
records  of  the  liuman  race. 

Who,  upon  this  hypothesis,  were  the  persons  that  first  pub- 
lished to  the  Jews  this  fictitious  history  and  counterfeit  law  ? 
At  what  age  did  they  live  ?  When  was  the  fabrication  made, 
and  the  cheat  put  upon  the  nation  ?  Was  it  while  the  memory 
of  Moses's  name  and  deeds  was  still  recent,  or  afterwards  ? 
Certainly  not  at  the  former  period,  for  then  all  things  were  too 
fresh  in  the  recollection  of  men  to  admit  the  possibility  of  a 
forgery  of  this  nature.  Moses  himself  might  as  readily  have 
played  upon  the  credulity  of  his  countrymen,  as  any  of  his 
immediate  or  early  successors.  Therefore,  the  imposition 
must  have  been  accomplished  in  an  age  long  posterior  to  the 
time  of  Moses.  In  that  case,  had  the  law  exhibited  in  the 
Pentateuch  been  observed  before,  or  not  ?  If  not,  then  the 
nation,  at  the  time  of  its  promulgation,  would  know  it  to  be 
a  cheat,  and  would  reject  it  as  such.  If  it  had  been  observed 
before,  had  such  observance  been  continually  down  from  the 
time  of  Moses,  or  not?  If  continually  down,  then  the  law 
must  have  been  of  his  framing,  and  the  hypothesis  falls  to  the 
ground.  If  not  continually  down,  then  the  nearer  the  for- 
gery was  to  his  time,  the  more  difficult  it  would  be  of  execu- 
tion. For  so  the  real  institutions  of  Moses  would  be  fresh  in 
men's  memory,  and  they  would  be  able  to  detect,  and  would 
certainly  repudiate,  all  counterfeits.* 

Innumerable  and  insuperable  difiiculties  press  upon  this 
hypothesis.  We  have  seen  some  of  them  ;  let  us  glance  at 
others. 

If  the  Pentateuch  is  a  fabrication,  the  author  of  it  put  a 
key  into  the  hands  of  those  upon  whom  he  sought  to  impose 
it,  which  would  enable  them,  with  infallible  certainty,  to  detect 
the  imposition.     He  makes  the  writing  speak  of  itself  as  com- 

*  See  the  reasoning  of  tliis  paragraph  presented  in  a  more  extended  forin, 
and  with  great  power,  ic  Still.  Orig.  Sac.  B.  2,  c.  1. 


1^6  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 


bj  Moses  ;*  be  makes  it  say,  tbat  a  copy  was  from  tbe 
first  preserved  in  tbe  ark  ;f  and  be  makes  it  obb'gatcry  on  tbe 
king  to  bave  a  copy  always  by  birn.:}:  'Now,  wben  tbe  autbor 
of  this  counterfeit  bistory  first  brougbt  it  forward,  it  would  be 
known  by  all,  tbat  tbere  was  no  copy  in  tbe  ark  ;  none  in  tbe 
liands  of  tbe  king  ;  and  none  in  tbe  bands  of  any  body  else. 
Tbis  sbows,  that  the  writing  could  not  be  a  forgery,  but  must 
have  been  tbe  genuine  work  of  Moses  ;  for,  if  it  bad  not  been 
bis,  its  own  declarations  would  bave  interposed  an  efiectual 
bar  to  its  reception. 

The  Fentateucb  vouches  its  own  credibility  by  public  ac- 
tions, observed  at  stated  times. §  It  narrates  various  import- 
ant events,  and  states,  tbat,  at  the  time  wben  they  occurred, 
certain  observances  were  instituted  to  preserve  tbe  memory  of 
them  to  posterity.  For  example,  it  relates  tbe  destruction  of 
tbe  first-born  of  tbe  Egyptians,  and  declares  tbat  to  commem- 
orate tbis  event,  tbe  first-born  of  Israel,  both  of  man  and 
beast,  were  forever  afterwards  to  be  consecrated  to  tbe  Lord.*!" 
Let  us  now  recur  to  tbe  hypothesis,  tbat  tbe  Pentateuch  is  a 
forger3\  When  the  fabrication  was  first  published,  every 
person  in  tbe  nation  must  bave  known,  that  tbere  was  no  such 
rite  or  custom  in  existence  among  them,  as  the  consecration 
of  the  first-born  to  Jehovah.  Yet  this  was  as  much  a  part  of 
the  original  matter  of  fact,  as  tbe  destruction  of  the  Egyptians. 
Would  they  not,  then,  knowing  one  essential  part  of  the  state- 
ment to  be  false,  conclude  tbe  other  to  be  false  likewise,  and 
reject  the  whole  as  a  fable,  and  one,  too,  of  an  extremely 
clumsy  construction?  If  I  were  now  to  invent  some  strange 
story  about  tbe  first  settlement  of  tbis  country,  I  might  per- 
haps gain  some  credit  to  the  tale  among  weak-minded  persons. 
But  if  I  were  to  add,  tbat  at  the  time  wben  tbe  alleged  fact 
took  place,  it  was  solemnly  appointed  tc  be  commemorated 

*  Deut.  xxxi.  9.  f  Deut.  xxxi.  26.  J  Deut.  xvii.  18, 19. 

§  See  "  Leslie's  Method  with  the  "Deists,"  oa  the  argument  from  monuments. 
T[  Ex.  xiii.  15. 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  197 

in  all  future  time  by  indelibly  branding  a  certain  mark  upon 
the  forehead  of  every  male  child,  the  most  credulous  person 
in  the  world  would  laugh  the  story  to  scorn,  because  every 
man  he  met  would  be  a  visible  and  stanaing  confutation  of  it- 
And  if,  not  content  with  inventing  a  single  fact,  I  should 
fabricate  a  series  of  the  most  public  and  remarkable  occur- 
rences, vouch  their  credibility  by  an  extended  system  of  com- 
memorative festivals  and  observances,  and  publish  the  whole 
as  an  authentic  history  in  the  name  of  Christopher  Columbus, 
expecting  to  get  it  received  as  such  by  my  countrymen, — 
could  any  words  sufficiently  express  the  folly  of  such  an  at- 
tempt ?  One  universal  scream  of  ridicule  would  be  the  only 
response  it  could  meet.  Yet  exactly  such  an  attempt, — 
absurd,  incredible,  impossible  as  it  is, — a  certain  class  of 
writers  would  have  us  believe,  was  not  only  made,  but  suc- 
ceeded, in  the  case  of  the  Pentateuch. 

But  more  and  worse.  The  Pentateuch  is  not  a  mere 
history ;  it  is  a  code  of  laws  likewise ;  a  code,  as  all  admit, 
acknowledged  and  adopted  by  the  Jews,  as  the  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  constitution  of  their  state.  By  the  hypothesis 
under  consideration,  this  code  is  a  fabrication,  a  forgery. 
Originally,  therefore,  the  Jews  were  under  a  different  law, 
and  this  was  foisted  upon  them  by  an. impostor.  JSTow,  it  is 
as  easy  to  impose  a  fabricated  code  on  one  nation  as  another, 
and  in  the  present  age  as  any  preceding  one.  Let  any  one, 
then,  ask  himself,  whether  it  would  be  possible  now  to  invent 
a  set  of  acts  of  congress,  and  get  them  received  by  the  whole 
American  people,  as  the  established  laws  of  the  rejiublic, 
known  and  obeyed  as  such,  since  the  origin  of  the  govern- 
ment down  to  the  present  time  ?  Does  this  strike  the  reader 
as  absurd  and  impossible?  Not  less  absurd  and  impossible  is 
the  supposition  of  forgery  in  the  present  case.  The  imj)ostor, 
who  imposed  the  code  of  the  Pentateuch  upon  the  Hebrews, 
must  have  made  them  forget  all  the  ancient  constitutions  of 
their  state,  and  believe,  that  they  and  their  forefathers  had 


198  COMMENTAEIES   ON    THE 

lived  under  a  system  of  laws  and  institutions,  wliicli,  in  point 
of  fact,  liad  never  been  known  or  heard  of,  till  then.  Is  such 
a  thing  conceivable  ?  Is  it  within  the  bounds  of  possibility  ^ 
The  very  polity  and  laws  of  the  ancient  Hebrews,  as  exhi- 
bited in  the  Pentateuch,  might  just  as  readily  be  imposed 
upon  the  American  peo]3le  at  this  moment,  to  the  exclusion 
of  all  existing  statutes,  and  the  whole  nation  made  to  believe, 
that  they  are  the  only  system  of  ecclesiastical  and  civil  law 
ever  knowai  among  them,  as  they  could  be  imposed  upon  the 
Hebrew  people,  in  any  age  subsequent  to  that  of  Moses,  on 
the  hypothesis  that  they  were  a  forgery. 

'No  other  instance  is  adduced  out  of  all  history,  none  is 
even  pretended,  of  a  forged  code  of  laws,  purporting  to  be 
brought  to  light  after  a  long  interval,  palmed  upon  the 
nation  as  the  genuine  work  of  their  ancient  legislators,  and 
actually  adopted  by  them,  as  the  rule  of  their  civil  and  reli- 
gious institutions.  It  is  impossible  in  this  way  to  alter  the 
fundamental  laws  of  a  state,  after  long  settlement,  as  every 
candid  person  must  see  and  owm,  on  the  slightest  reflection. 
Such  a  procedure  would  produce  endless  confusion  of  inter- 
ests and  rights,  overturning,  as  it  must,  all  the  established 
relations  of  property,  and  changing  all  the  old  institutions 
and  usages  of  society.'  Men  would  not  submit  to  the  change. 
A  striking  fact  illustrative  of  this  point  occurs  in  Roman 
history.  Long  after  the  death  of  Numa,  a  body  of  laws  was 
found  in  his  grave.  It  seems  to  have  been  believed,  that 
these  laws  were  of  his  composing.  Yet,  notwithstanding  the 
veneration  in  which  his  memory  was  held,  the  senate,  judg- 
ing them  contrary  to  the  existing  laws,  ordered  them  to  bo 
burnt.  They  would  not  even  allow  the  public  to  know  the 
nature  and  purport  of  them,  lest  the  state  should  be  unset- 
tled by  it.* 

A  writing  maybe  forged,  and  gain  a  temporary  success,  if 
it  relates  to  matters  not  of  general  interest ;  but  when  it  con- 
*  Stillingfleet,  Orii,^  Sac.  B.  2,  c.  1. 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  199 

cerns  the  riglits,  privileges,  and  government  of  a  nation, 
there  will  be  enongh,  whose  interest  will  lead  them  to  pre- 
vent imposture.  Men  are  quicksighted  in  what  relates  to 
tlieir  estates  and  freeholds.  It  is  certain,  therefore,  thai  any 
attempt  of  the  kind  supposed,  would  fail,  and  would  be 
laughed  at  as  the  last  abortive  folly  of  a  crazed  imagination. 
Men  were  not  simpletons  in  ancient  times,  any  more  than 
they  are  now.  They  had  their  senses,  as  well  as  we.  They 
were  as  much  alive  to  their  interests,  and  as  clear-sighted  in 
the  discernment  of  them.  They  were  as  tenacious  of  their 
rights,  and  as  unwilling  to  be  deceived.  ISTo  man,  therefore, 
could  forge,  and  no  man  did  forge,  the  Pentateuch.  The 
very  supposition  of  such  an  imposture  is  a  libel  upon  the 
intelligence  of  antiquity.  It  is  tantamount  to  a  charge  of 
idiocy  against  the  whole  Jewish  race.  And  if  nations,  in 
their  associated  capacity,  could  bring  an  action  for  slander, 
such  an  action  could  be  sustained  by  the  house  of  Israel 
against  any  man,  who  should  charge  them  with  being  so  far 
"non  compotes  mentis,"  as  to  have  allowed  a  forgery  of  the 
kind  in  question  to  obtain  the  least  credit  or  currency  among 
them. 

Tlie  second  internal  proof  of  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  Pentateuch,  is  draw^n  from  the  minuteness  and 
particularity  of  the  narrative,  and  from  the  general  tone  and 
style  of  the  composition,  which  is  remarkable  for  its  artless- 
ness  and  simplicity.  The  entire  structure  of  the  work  is 
totally  unlike  the  general  detail  of  a  remote  comiDiler ;  ^  its 
whole  manner  the  direct  opposite  of  the  labored  artifice  of 
fiction  and  forgery.  This  argument  is  of  greater  force  in 
such  a  writing  as  the  Pentateuch,  than  it  would  be  in  most 
other  compositions ;  for  the  author,  if  he  were  an  imjjostor, 
must  have  felt  that  he  was  engaged  in  an  imdertaking  of  the 
greatest  difficulty ;  an  undertaking  requiring  no  ordinary 
ingenuity  and  no  common  caution  ;  an  undertaking,  indeed, 
never  before  attempted,  and  little  likely  to  succeed ;  and  this 


200  COMMENTAEIES    ON    THE 

consciousness  must  have  occasioned  a  feeling  of  constraint 
and  anxiety,  wliicli  would  be  sure  to  betray  itself  in  tlie  exe- 
cution of  liis  self-imposed  task.  But,  in  point  of  fact,  irom 
the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  there  is 
not  the  slightest  appearance  of  any  such  feeling  in  the  writer. 
He  descends  to  the  minutest  details  in  describing  the  mate- 
rials and  workmanship  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture, — 
the  altar,  the  lavers,  the  ark,  the  dress  of  the  priests,  the 
curtains  and  their  borders,  the  pillars,  the  sockets,  the  rings, 
the  loops,  the  tenons,  &c.,  &c.  There  is  the  same  minute- 
ness of  detail  in  laying  down  rules  for  the  sacrifices,  in  dis- 
tinguishing between  clean  and  unclean  meats,  in  pointing 
out  the  various  ways  of  contracting  and  removing  ceremonial 
impurity,  and  in  describing  the  symptoms  and  the  cure  of 
leprosy,  both  of  persons  and  of  houses.  Again,  the  same  thing 
is  observable  in  the  geographical  enumerations  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, and  in  its  accounts  of  the  marches  and  encampments 
of  the  Israelites.  In  regard  to  all  these  matters,  the  details 
are  numerous  and  exact  in  the  highest  degree ;  and  many  of 
them  are  repeated  again  and  again.  But  throughout  the 
whole  there  is  not  the  least  appearance  of  art,  or  caution,  or 
dread  of  discovery.  Now,  all  this  is  most  natural  and 
probable,  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  Pentateuch  is  what  it 
purports  to  be,  and  Moses  the  writer  of  it;  but  most  unna- 
tural and  improbable,  on  the  hypothesis  that  an  impostor  in 
a  distant  age  was  the  author  of  the  writing.  It  is  the  way 
of  forgers  and  impostors  to  deal  in  vague  generalities.  They 
studiously  avoid  minuteness  of  detail,  for  that  greatly  multi- 
lilies  the  chances  of  discovery.  But  the  author  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch appears  perfectly  careless  in  this  matter,  lie  says 
what  he  has  to  say,  in  the  most  inartificial  and  guileless 
manner  imaginable,  interweaving  laws  with  history,  and 
piling  details  upon  details,  without  the  least  apparent  solici- 
tude as  to  whether  his  statements  should  be  believed  or  not. 
Could  he  have  d  me  this,  if  he  had  not  known,  that  what  he 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  201 

wrote  was  true,  and  if  he  had  not  felt,  that  it  would  be 
unhesitatingly  credited  by  the  persons,  to  whom  it  was  ad- 
dressed ? 

The  third  internal  proof  of  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  Pentateuch,  is  drawn  from  its  impartiality,  "Wlien 
we  see  a  writer  manifestly  actuated  by  a  design  to  aggran- 
dize himself,  to  advance  his  family  and  posterity,  or, — which 
is  a  fault  highly  characteristic  of  the  Greek  historians, — to 
raise  the  credit  and  fame  of  his  own  nation,  we  may  suspect 
him  of  leaving  the  beaten  way  of  truth,  to  tread  the  devious 
paths  of  deceit.  But  there  is  no  ground  to  suspect  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch  of  any  such  personal,  domestic,  or 
national  bias.  On  the  contrary,  never  has  any  other  historian 
displayed  the  quality  of  impartiality  in  so  eminent  a  degree 
as  this  writer.  See  how  he  speaks  of  the  near  relatives  of 
the  lawgiver.  The  faults  of  Aaron  and  Miriam,  his  brother 
and  sister,  the  fault  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  his  nephews,  and 
the  rebellious  conduct  of  his  own  tribe,  in  common  with  that 
of  the  other  tribes,  on  the  return  of  the  spies,  are  spoken  of 
in  terms  at  once  plain  and  severe.  Little  is  said  of  his  wife, 
except  that  her  name  was  Zipporah,  that  she  was  an  Ethio- 
pian woman,  and  that  as  such  she  was  an  object  of  contempt 
and  hatred.*  His  own  sons  were  left  in  the  meanest  sort  of 
attendance  upon  the  tabernable,  no  provision  being  made  for 
the  civil  advancement,  either  of  them  or  their  posterity.  Quite 
as  little  does  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  flatter  the  nation 
of  the  lawgiver.  It  could  have  formed  no  part  of  his  design 
to  enhance  their  reputation  in  the  world,  since  he  describes 
their  frowardness,  unbelief,  murmurings,  disobedience,  and 
rebellions,  in  such  vivid  colors  as  might  almost  warrant  the 
suspicion  of  an  intention  to  vilify  their  national  character. 
He  sets  forth  also,  with  great  particularity,  the  faults  and 
foibles  of  the  patriarchs,  their  ancestors,  without  seeking  in 
the  smallest  degree  to  disguise  or  extenuate  them.  Several 
•  Xum  \ii.  1. 


203  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

of  these  ancestors  he  describes  as  having  been  guilty  of  gross 
crimes  ;  and  uj^on  all,  witli  the  solitary  exception  of  Joseph, 
he  charges  weaknesses  and  imperfections,  which  a  zealous 
partizan  would  have  studiously  concealed.  But  the  impar- 
tiality of  this  writer  is  most  conspicuous  in  his  manner  of 
speaking  of  tlie  lawgiver  himself.  Without  the  least  reserve 
he  interweaves  the  history  of  his  failings  with  that  of  the 
failings  of  his  nation.  Had  he  entertained  the  design  of 
causing  his  memory  to  be  held  in  superstitious  veneration  by 
his  countrymen,  how  easy  had  it  been  to  leave  out  those 
passages  wlikjh  mar  the  perfect  symmetry  of  his  character, 
and  obscure  the  brilliancy  of  his  reputation,  as  in  fact  has 
been  done  by  the  Jewish  historian  Josephus.  But  he  ap- 
pears perfectly  indifferent  in  that  regard,  or  rather,  I  may 
say,  he  studiously  depresses  the  honor  of  men,  his  own  as 
well  as  that  of  others,  that  he  may  magnify  the  power  of 
God,  and  exalt  his  goodness  towards  a  disobedient  and  rebel- 
lious people.  And  all  this  he  does,  not  in  an  affected  strain 
of  rhetoric,  but  in  a  style  natural  and  unadorned.  Tlie  low 
design  of  pandering  to  the  taste  of  the  multitude  with  rheto- 
rical phrases,  was  manifestly  beneath  his  ambition.  Like 
Paul,  he  held  in  contempt  that  excellency  of  speech,  on 
which  the  ancient  rhetoricians  so  prided  themselves.  He 
displays  no  vanity  of  composition,  no  anxiety  about  the  ele- 
gance of  his  periods.  He  writes  withe ut  effort  and  without 
art.  Yet,  had  it  been  his  design  to  produce  a  splendid  piece 
of  writing,  he  shows  plainly  enough,  that  he  might  have 
pursued  it  with  no  mean  success.  "In  the  triumphant  hymn, 
which  he  has  inserted  on  the  deliverance  of  the  terrified 
Israelites  from  the  host  of  Pharaoh,  we  discover  a  boldness 
and  sublimity  of  composition  seldom  excelled.  In  the  ad- 
dress to  the  assembled  nation,  supposed  to  be  delivered  by 
Moses  shortly  before  his  death  ;  in  the  blessings  promised 
for  obedience,  and  the  curses  denounced  against  offenders ; 
and  especially  in  the  song  he  taught  the  people,  recapitu- 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBKEWS.  203 

latiiig  the  wonders  of  God's  providence  wliich  they  had 
witnessed,  and  the  judgments  they  might  expect;  we 
discover  a  judicious  selection  of  striking  circumstances, 
strong  imagery,  pathetic  appeals  to  the  tenderest  feelings, 
and  the  authoritative  language  of  the  legislator  and  the 
prophet  combined  so  aptly,  as  prove  the  writer  fully  capa- 
ble of  commanding  most  powerfully  the  attention,  and 
interesting  the  heart.*"  N'evertheless,  though  evidently  so 
well  qualified  to  produce  a  beautiful,  eloquent,  and  engaging 
composition,  and  to  embellish  it  with  every  artistic  excel- 
lence ;  he  has  written  the  Pentateuch  in  such  a  way  as  to 
show  conclusively,  that  this  was  no  part  of  his  design.  He 
seems,  indeed,  to  have  thought  that  truth  itself  is  invested 
with  such  inborn  majesty  and  perfection,  as  to  command 
both  the  submission  of  our  understanding  and  the  affection 
ot  our  heart. 

Tiie  fourth  internal  proof  of  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  only  remaining  one,  to 
which  the  reader's  attention  will  be  called,  is  drawn  from 
the  intimate  knowledge,  which  the  writer  everywhere  dis- 
plays of  Egypt,  its  climate,  soil,  productions,  manners,  cus- 
toms, religion,  government,  arts,  and  civilization.  It  is  true, 
indeed,  that  an  argument  of  directly  the  opposite  purport, 
an  argument  in  derogation  of  the  claim  of  the  Pentateuch  to 
be  considered  as  a  true  and  genuine  history,  has  been  reared 
on  the  author's  alleged  ignorance  of  these  very  things,  and 
his  consequent  blunders  in  his  Egyptian  references.  But 
this,  like  all  other  attacks  directed  against  the  evidences  of 
divine  revelation,  has  but  added  strength  to  the  bulwarks 
of  our  faith,  by  calling  to  its  aid  the  best  j)Owers  of  its  ad- 
lierents,  who  have,  with  pious  industry,  explored  the  whole 
subject,  and  brought  back,  as  the  result  of  their  learned 
labors,  the  certainty,  that  the  writer  of  the  Pentateuch,  so 
far  from  being  chargeable  with  ignorance  on  this  score,  was 
*  Graveson  Pent.  Pt.  1,  Lect.  2. 


204  COilMENTARIES    ON   TIIE 

perfectly  familiar  witli  the  whole  circle  of  Egyptian  man- 
ners, arts,  and  learning.  In  this  field  Ilengstenberg  has 
particularly  distinguished  himself.  To  his  admirable  work, 
entitled  "Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses,"*  in  which  the  sub- 
ject is  treated  in  detail,  the  reader  is  directed  for  full  satis- 
faction. All  that  can  be  attempted  here  is  a  few  brief 
references  to  some  of  the  more  striking  points. 

The  author  of  the  Pentateuch  says  of  the  Egyptians,  that 
they  made  the  lives  of  the  Hebrews  bitter  with  hard  bond- 
age, in  mortar  and  in  brick. f  Upon  this  statement,  he  has 
been  charged  with  ignorance  of  Egyptian  usages,  and  with 
transferring  to  the  valley  of  the  Nile  what  really  belonged 
to  Babylonia.  But  the  explorations  of  Egyptian  monuments, 
made  during  the  present  century,  cause  the  charge  to  re- 
bound upon  those  who  have  brought  it.  Champollion 
speaks  of  a  tomb  of  brick  at  Sais,  and  a  temple  of  the  same 
material  at  Wady  Haifa.  Eosellini:}:  says,  that  ruins  of  great 
brick  buildings  are  found  in  all  parts  of  Egypt,  and  whole 
pyramids  of  brick  at  Dashoor.  Wilkinsong  also  attests  the 
use  of  crude  bricks,  baked  in  the  sun,  to  have  been  universal 
in  upper  and  lower  Egypt,  both  for  public  and  private 
buildings.  \\ 

In  the  enumeration,  which  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch 
has. made  of  Pharaoh's  present  to  Abraham,  asses,  sheep, 
and  camels  are  included.^     On  this,  also,  has  been  founded 

*  Translated  by  au  eminent  American  scholar,  Prof.  Robinson,  of  Middle- 
bury  College. 

t  Ex.  i.  14. 

J  I  Monumenti  dell'  Egitto  e  della  Nubia,  ii.  2,  p.  249.  This  refers  nee, 
as  also  most  of  those  which  follow  in  the  remaining  part  of  this  chapter, 
except  the  biblical  references,  are  taken  from  Hengstenberg  without  verifi- 
cation, Ihe  authorities  not  being  at  hand  where  the  author  writes. 

§  Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  Loudon,  1842,  vol.  ii. 
p.  90. 

II  Hengstenberg's  "  Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses,"  pp.  1,  2. 

Tf  Gen.  xii.  16. 


LAWS   OF   THE   AJSrCEENT   HEBREWS.  205 

clie  cliarge  of  ignorance  and  error.  These  animals,  it  is  al- 
leged, were  not  found  in  Egypt.  But  tlie  monuments  exhibit 
numerous  representations  of  both  sheep  and  asses,  proving 
couchisively,  that  they  were  found  there,  and  that  in  great 
abundance.  Camels,  it  is  true,  have  not  yet  been  found 
delineated  on  the  monuments.  But  the  strongest  inference, 
which  that  fact  will  warrant,  is,  that  they  were  not  numer- 
ous. Even  such  an  inference  is  not  certain  ;  for  not  only 
are  many  objects,  known  to  have  existed  among  the  ancient 
Egyptians,  as  the  wild  boar  and  the  wild  ass,  for  instance,* 
wanting  in  their  paintings  ;  but  some  are  wanting,  in  which 
Egypt  certainly  abounded,  of  which  class  fowls  and  pigeons 
may  serve  as  an  example.f  The  reader's  attention  is  called, 
in  passing,  to  a  singular  omission  in  Pharaoh's  present,  viz. 
the  horse.  This  omission  aifords  an  undesigned,  but  on  that 
account  all  the  more  cogent  evidence  of  the  antiquity  and 
genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  horse  was  native  to 
Egypt,  and  found  there  in  the  greatest  abundance.  The 
reason  of  the  omission  of  this  animal  from  Pharaoh's  pre- 
sent, therefore,  could  not  have  been  in  the  giver,  but  must 
have  been  in  the  receiver.  ]^ow  it  is  certain,  that,  down  to 
the  time  of  Joshua  and  the  Judges,  little  or  no  use  is  made 
of  the  horse  by  the  patriarchs  or  their  descendants.  In  all 
the  descriptions  of  the  riches  of  Palestine,  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch,  though  camels,  oxen,  sheep,  goats,  and  asses  are 
enumerated,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  horse.  Would  not 
a  fabricator,  who  lived  in  the  times  of  the  kings,  and  after 
horses  had  become  common  in  Palestine,  have  mentioned 
that  animal  ?  Beyond  a  doubt  he  would ;  for  it  is  not  likely, 
that  he  would  know  at  what  time  the  horse  was  introduced ; 
and  it  is  still  less  likely,  that  he  would  have  managed  his 
forgery  with  so  much  circumspecticn  for  the  sake  of  pre- 
serving historical  consistency.:}:     To  my  mind,  this  is  a  very 

*  Wilk.  vol.  iii.  p.  21.  t  Ibid.  p.  35. 

X  Hengstenberg's  "  Egypt  and  Books  of  Moses,"  pp.  3-7 


206  COAIMENTAKIES    ON    THE 

strong  argument  in  supjiort  of  the  genuine  historical  cha- 
racter and  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Tlie  dream  of  Pharaoh's  chief  butler,  as  narrated  in  the 
Pentateuch,*  has  been  supposed  to  show  the  narrator's 
ignorance  of  the  agriculture  of  Egypt.  The  dream  implies 
the  existence  of  the  vine  In  that  countr3^  JSTow  Herodotus 
says  expressly,  that  no  vines  grew  in  Egypt,  and  Plutarch 
affirms,  that  wine  was  neither  drunk  nor  offered  in  sacrifice, 
till  the  time  of  Psammeticus,  who  was  contemporary  with 
Josiali.  These,  it  must  be  owned,  look  like  formidable  tes- 
timonies. Yet  even  if  there  were  no  counter  testimony, 
wherewith  to  rebut  them,  I  would  still  adhere  to  the  con- 
clusion established  in  the  last  chapter,  i.  e.  that  no  such 
superior  credibility  belongs  to  ancient  profane  history,  that 
it  is  to  be  believed  in  preference,  when  its  statements  con- 
flict with  those  of  sacred  writ.  But,  fortunately,  there  is  no 
lack  of  proof  in  this  case,  to  convict  of  error  the  heathen 
historians,  and  to  vindicate  the  truth  of  the  Mosaic  record. 
Both  Hellanicus  and  Diodorus  not  only  attest  the  cultivation 
of  the  vine  in  Egypt,  but  ascribe  to  that  country  the  origin 
of  the  vine-culture.  Herodotus  even  may  be  confronted  by 
Herodotus  ;f  for  out  of  other  parts  of  his  writings,  an  argu- 
ment of  no  little  force,  miglit  be  constructed,  to  prove  that 
the  vine  was  cultivated  in  Egypt  at  a  very  early  day.  But 
all  this,  however  important  it  might  be  under  other  circum- 
stances, is  to  little  purpose  now,  since  the  monuments  show, 
conclusively,  both  that  the  vine  was  cultivated  and  wine 
made  in  the  land  of  the  Pharaohs.  This  fact  is  fully  estab- 
lished, through  the  labors  of  Cliampollion,  Kosellini,  and 
Wilkmson.  Champollion;}:  says,  that  there  are  found,  in  the 
grottoes  of  Beni  Hassan,  representations  of  the  vine,  the 
vintage,  the  putting  up  of  the  wine  in  bottles  or  jars,  the 
transportation  into  the  cellar,  &c.,  &c.     Kosellini§  devotes 

*  Gen.  xl.  10.  seq.  t  Herod,  ii.  42  and  144. 

X  Champ.  51.  §  Kosell.  vol.  ii.  pp.  365,  ot  seq. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBKEWS.  207 

a  whole  section  to  grape  gathering  and  the  art  of  making 
wine.  Wilkinson*  gives  the  engraving  and  description  of 
an  Egyptian  vineyard,  and  the  different  kind  of  labor  be- 
stowed npon  it.f  Joseph,  according  to  the  Pentateuch,  is 
placed  by  Potiphar  over  all  his  substance,  both  in  the  house 
and  in  the  field  ;:j:  and,  after  his  exaltation,  he  himself  has  a 
man  over  his  house. §  A  custom  peculiarly  Egyj^tian,  as  the 
paintings  abundantly  attest.  I 

The  shameless  imj^udence  of  Potiphar's  wife  is  related  by 
the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. "f  Tliis  is  a  touch  of  Egyptian 
manners,  true  to  the  life.  Kowhere  was  the  marriage  vow 
less  regarded.  The  wife  of  one  of  the  kings,  according  to 
Herodotus,**  was  untrue  to  him.  He  wished  to  take  another. 
He  began  the  search  for  a  woman,  who  had  proved  faith- 
ful to  her  husband.  It  was  long  before  he  found  such  an 
one,  and  when  he  did,  he  took  her  without  hesitation  for 
himself.  Herodotus  describes  the  great  corruption  of  manners 
with  resjDCct  to  the  marriage  relation.  The  monuments  do 
not  give  a  favorable  testimony  to  the  Egyptian  women. 
They  represent  them  as  addicted  to  excessive  drinking,  so 
as  often  to  be  unable  to  walk,  or  even  to  stand  alone.ff 

Tlie  author  of  the  Pentateuch  is  charged  with  error  in 
representing  Joseph  as  being  admitted  into  the  presence  of 
a  lady  of  such  rank  as  the  wife  of  Potiphar, ;{::}:  since,  as  is 
alleged,  none  but  eunuchs  could  enter  the  apartments  of  the 
women.  But  the  author  knew  better  what  to  say  than  his 
critics.  The  blunder  is  with  them,  instead  of  him.  They 
have  transferred  a  custom  of  the  East  to  the  banks  of  the 
Nile,  while  he  has  spoken  of  Egyptian  manners  just  as  they 
were,  thereby  showing  that  intimate  acquaintance  with  his 
subject,  which  it  is  so  difficult  for  a  forger  to  attain.     The 

*  Y.  2.  pp.  143,  etseq.  f  Hengsten.  pp.  12-18 

J  Gen,  xxxix.  4,  5.  §  Gen.  xliii.  16,  19.     xliv.  1. 

il  Hengsten.  p.  25.  •[  Gen.  xxxiii.  7,  et  seq. 

**  ii.  111.  If  Wilk.  V.  2.  p.  167.    Hensten.  pp.  25,  26. 

tt  Gen.  xxxix.  11. 


208 


COM]VIENTARIES    ON   THE 


monuments,  according  to  Wilkinson,*  represent  the  women 
of  Egypt  as  living  under  far  less  restraint,  than  that  to  which 
they  -wiire  subject  in  more  eastern  countries,  or  even  in 
Greece  itself.  Ladies  and  gentlemen  are  delineated  aa 
mingling  together,  in  their  festive  entertainments,  with  all 
the  freedom  of  modern  European  intercourse.f 

Joseph,  when  called  before  Pharaoh,  is  represented  in  the 
Pentateuch  as  shaving  himself.:}:  This  was  a  purely  Egyp- 
tian custom,  IIerodotus§  mentions  it  as  such ;  and  the 
sculptures  confirm  his  representation.  According  to  Wil- 
kinson,! the  Egyptians  were  so  particular  on  this  point,  that 
"  to  have  neglected  it  was  a  subject  of  reproach  and  ridi- 
cide  ;  and  whenever  they  intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  a 
man  of  low  condition,  or  a  slovenly  person,  the  artists  repre- 
sented him  with  a  beard."^ 

The  Pentateuch  describes  the  labors  of  Joseph  in  building 
store-houses,  and  storing  up  corn  against  the  famine.**  The 
paintings  on  the  monuments  give  a  vivid  representation  of 
the  whole  scene,  showing  how  very  common  the  store-house 
was  in  Egypt,  It  appears  from  the  paintings,  that  they  kept 
an  account  of  the  amount  of  grain  stored  in  the  magazines, 
for  at  the  side  of  the  wdndows  of  one  of  them  there  are  char- 
acters indicating  the  quantity  deposited  therein."f  f  Tliis 
tlirbws  light  on  the  statement,  that  Joseph  gathered  corn  as 
the  sand  of  the  sea,  "  until  he  leftnumbering.":}::}: 

The  author  of  the  Pentateuch  speaks  of  famine  as  visiting 
Egypt  and  the  adjacent  country  of  Palestine  at  the  same 
time.§§  Tliis  fact  has  been  seized  upon  by  the  enemies  of 
revelation,  and  made  the  ground  of  a  charge  of  ignorance 
in  the  writer  of  tlie  natural  condition  of  Egypt.     The  fertility 

*  V.  2.  p.  389.  f  Hengsten.  p.  26. 

J  Gen.  xli.  14.  |  ii.  35.  ||  V.  3.  p.  357. 

If  Hengsten.  p.  30.  **  Gen.  xli.  48,  49. 

tt  Rosel.  V.  2.  p.  324,  seq.     JJ  Gen.  xli.  49.     Hengsten  pp.  34,  35. 

52  Gen.  xlvii.  13. 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBKEWS.  209 

of  Egyj^t  depends  ujjon  the  overflowings  of  tlie  Nile  ;  the  fer- 
tility of  Palestine,  upon  rain;  causes,  apparently,  quite  diverse 
the  one  from  the  other.  This  certainly  has  a  suspicious  look. 
But  it  only  needs  a  little  deeper  study  of  the  subject  to  change 
the  suspicion  into  an  opposite  certainty.  The  author's  repre- 
sentation is  in  harmony  with  the  meteorological  phenomena  in 
the  case,  and  the  reproach  of  ignorance  recoils  on  those  who 
make  it.  That  the  rise  and  overflow  of  the  Nile  depend 
upon  the  rains  which  fall  upon  the  Abj^ssinian  mountains, 
is  noticed  even  by  Herodotus.  These  rains,  it  is  now  well 
ascertained,  proceed  from  clouds  formed  upon  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea,  and  have  the  same  origin  as  the  rains  which  ftiU 
in  Palestine.*  Thus  it  appears  that,  contrary  to  what  would 
at  first  be  supposed,  the  fertility  of  Egypt  and  the  fertility 
of  Palestine  have  a  common  source  ;  and  the  accuracy  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  fully  vindicated.  Had  the  author's 
knowledge  of  Egypt  been  less,  had  it  been  grounded  on 
mere  hearsay,  instead  of  actual  observation,  he  would  prob- 
ably have  represented  the  matter  in  conformity  with  the 
demand  of  his  calumniators,  and  so  have  proved  his  igno- 
rance to  be  equal  to  theirs.f 

The  Pentateuch  describes  Joseph,  his  brethren,  and  the 
Egyptians  as  sitting  at  an  entertainment.:}:  Another  touch 
peculiarly  Egyptian.  While  the  orientals,  the  Hebrews  in- 
cluded, were  accustomed  to  recline  at  their  meals,  the  habit 
of  the  Egyptians,  according  to  the  monuments,  was  to  sit.§ 
Rosellini|  describes  a  painting,  in  which  each  of  the  guests 
sits  upon  a  stool,  which,  he  says,  in  accordance  with  their 
custom,  took  the  place  of  the  couch.^ 

Tlie  Pentateuch  speaks  of  the  steward  of  Joseph  as  desig- 
nating a  certain  cup  of  his  master's  as  that  out  of  which  he 
divineth,**  The  practice  of  divining  by  cups  is  mentioned 

*Le  Pere,  Descr.  v.  7.  p.  576.  f  Hengsten.  pp.  35,37. 

X  Gen.  xliii.  32.  |  Wilk.  v.  2,  p.  201, 

II  Vol.  2.  p.  439.       ^  Hengsten.  pp.  37,38.        **  Gen.  xliv.  5. 
14 


210  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

by  Jamblicus,*  as  among  the  superstitions  of  Egypt ;  audit 
appears  from  a  passage  in  Korden's  Travels,f  that  the  cus- 
tom has  descended  through  all  the  intervening  ages,  down 
to  our  own  times.  In  a  remote  extremity  of  Egypt,  a  pow- 
erful Arab  cliiet  addressed  one  of  the  party  thus:  "I  know 
what  sort  of  people  you  are.  I  have  consulted  my  cup,"  ttcij; 

The  references  of  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  to  the  ge- 
ographical relations  and  features  of  Egypt,  though  not  nu- 
merous, are  such  as  to  evince  his  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
topography  of  the  country.  It  is  true,  that  they  are  scat- 
tered, incidental,  and  undesigned  ;  but  all  the  more  cer- 
tain is  the  proof  thence  afforded,  that  the  writer's  knowl- 
edge was  not  laboriously  gathered  for  the  occasion,  nor  re- 
ceived at  second  hand,  but  was  original,  derived  from  per- 
sonal observation,  and  of  such  compass  and  exactness  as  to 
free  him  from  all  apprehension  of  falling  into  errors.  On 
the  whole,  they  add  no  little  strength  to  the  internal  evi- 
dence of  his  credibility  as  an  historian.  But  to  bring  out 
this  argument  in  its  just  force  would  require  more  space 
than  can  be  spared  for  the  purpose.  The  reader  is,  there- 
fore, referred  to  the  work  of  Professor  Hengstenberg  on 
Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses,  where  he  will  find  it  treated 
at  large  on  pp.  42-61. 

The  Pentateuch  narrates,  as  a  consequence  of  famine,  the 
sale  to  the  sovereign  of  all  the  lands  of  the  people  of  Egypt ; 
the  reservation  of  the  lands  of  the  priests,  because,  having 
food  assigned  them  by  Pharaoh,  they  were  under  no  neces- 
sity of  parting  with  them ;  and  the  parcelling  out,  when  the 
famine  was  over,  of  the  same  territory  to  its  former  owners 
by  lease,  on  condition  of  a  yearly  rent  of  one-fifth  of  the 
produce,  to  be  paid  into  the  royal  treasury.§  "What,  now, 
is  the  testimony  of  profane  winters  ?  According  to  Ilerod- 
otuSjl  an  ancient  king  had  divided  the  whole  land  among 

*  Part  3.  §  14.  p.  68.  f  V.  3.  p.  f.S.     J  Hongston.  pp.  38,  39. 

§  Gen.  xlvii.  13,26.  1|  B.  2.  c.  109. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  211 

the  Egyptians,  giving  to  eacli  a  square  portion  of  equal  ex- 
cellent, and  receiving  from  each  a  yearly  rent  in  return. 
According  to  Diodorus  *  all  the  land  in  Egypt  belonged 
either  to  the  kings,  or  the  priests,  or  the  military  caste. 
According  to  Strabo,f  the  Egyptians,  who  were  engaged  in 
agriculture,  held  their  land  of  the  sovereign,  and  paid  rent. 
According  to  the  monuments,  as  we  learn  from  Wilkinson, 
only  kings,  priests,  and  the  military  order  were  land  owners. 
All  these  profane  authorities  concur  with  holy  writ  in  the 
main  fact,  viz.  ;  that  the  cultivators  were  not  the  owners  of 
the  soil.  On  one  point,  indeed,  there  is  an  apparent  disa- 
greement. The  Pentateuch  limits  the  ownership  of  land  to 
the  kings  and  the  priests  ;  Strabo  extends  it  to  the  military 
order  as  well ;  and  herein  his  authority  is  confirmed  by  the 
sculptures. :|;  But  Herodotus§  furnishes  a  key,  whereby  this 
apparent  discrepancy  can  be  reconciled.  It  is  in  the  state- 
ment made  by  him,  that  the  land  of  the  soldiers  differed 
from  that  of  the  peasants  in  being  free  of  rent ;  otherwise, 
he  says,  it  belonged  to  the  kings,  and  was  given  by  them  in 
fee  to  the  soldiery.  But  there  is  still  another  point  of  disa- 
greement between  the  Pentateuch  and  these  profane  au- 
thors. Moses  asserts  an  original  possession  of  the  soil  of 
Egypt  by  the  cultivators,  and  a  transfer  of  the  title  to  the 
king  under  extraordinary  circumstances  ;T  Herodotus  knows 
nothing  of  this,  but  represents  the  king  as  the  original  pro- 
prietor. ISTow  this  contradiction,  so  far  from  invalidating 
the  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch,  serves  rather  to  confirm 
it,  since  it  presents  in  a  strong  light  the  superior  knowledge 
of  the  author,  which  extends  back  to  a  period  not  even  ap- 
proached by  the  knowledge  of  profane  writers.  Here  is  an 
historical  fact,  stated  by  the  Pentateuch,  and  vouched  in  the 
most  ample  manner  by  these  writers,  viz. ;  the  possession  by 
the  king  of  all  the  land  of  Egypt  not  owned  by  the  priests. 

*  1.  73.  f  17.  p.  787.  X  Wilk.  v.  1.  p.  263. 

^  B.  2.  c  141.  II  Gen.  xlvii.  19,  20. 


212  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

How  did  this  fact  orignate  ?  How  came  sucli  a  condition  of 
tilings  to  exist?  Egypt  was  not  obtained  by  conquest ;  and  it 
is,  therefore,  wlioUy  inconceivable,  as  being  contrary  to  all 
the  analogies  of  history,  that  the  king  should  have  been  the 
original  proprietor.  Tlie  author  of  the  Pentateuch  solves 
the  problem,  in  a  manner  both  natural  and  probable ;  the 
profane  authors  leave  it  not  only  unexplained,  but  inexpli- 
cable. Can  any  ingenuous  mind  fail  to  recognize,  in  this 
accurate  acquaintance  with  the  condition  of  Egypt,  in  the 
most  remote  ages,  a  strong  proof  of  the  credibility  of  the 
writer,  who  exhibits  it  ?* 

The  author  of  the  Pentateuch  spealcs  of  the  embalming 
of  Jacob  as  occupying  forty  days,  and  the  mourning  for  him 
by  the  Egyptians  as  lasting  seventy  days.f  The  view  given 
by  classical  authors — Diodorus,:}:  Herodotus,§  and  others — 
of  the  general  usage  of  the  Egyptians,  on  both  these  points, 
agrees  with  this  statement  exactly.  Again,  the  author 
represents  the  funeral  train,  which  accompanied  the  corpse 
of  Jacob  to  Canaan,  as  coming  to  the  threshing  floor  of  Atad, 
beyond  Jordan,  and  mourning  there  with  a  great  and  sore 
lamentation.il  This  was,  as  we  learn  from  other  sources, 
eminently  an  Egyptian  custom.  The  classical  writers  show 
that  tlie  Egyptians  appointed  for  themselves  a  very  sol- 
emn mourning  for  the  dead,  especially  for  those  of  high 
ranlc.^  Tliere  is  another  touch  in  this  history  of  the  mourn- 
ing for  Israel,  which  evinces  the  author's  intimate  acquain- 
tance with  Egyptian  peculiarities.  He  represents  Joseph 
as  speahing  to  the  house  of  Pharaoh,  and  saying,  "If  now 
I  have  found  grace  in  your  eyes,  speak,  I  pray  you,  in  the 
ears  of  Pharaoh,"  &c,**  Why  did  not  Joseph  go  directly  to 
the  king  with  his  request,  as  at  other  times  ?  Doubtless,  be- 
cause propriety,  agreeably  to  the  Egyptian  concej)tion  of  it, 
required  the  head  and  face  to  be  shaven,  and  none  were 

•>'  nenstenpp.62-70.         f  Gen.  1.  3.  J  1.  91,  72. 

§  2.  86.  II  Gon.  1.  10,  11. 

H  Herod.  B.  2.  c.  85      Diod.  B.  1.  c.  91.  **  Gen.  I.  4. 


LAWS   OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  213 

permitttd  to  appear  before  tlie  king  unshorn.*  But,  on  tlie 
other  hand,  the  laws  of  mourning  forbade  the  use  of  the 
razor,  while  the  mourning  continued.f  How  natural,  under 
these  circumstances,  the  application  to  Pharaoh  through 
others,  which,  under  other  circumstances,  w^ould  most  natur- 
ally have  been  made  in  person  !  In  the  same  history,  the 
author  distinguishes  between  the  elders  of  the  house  of 
Pharaoh  and  the  elders  of  the  land  of  Egypt  ;:j:  that  is,  be- 
tween the  court-officers  and  the  state-officers.  A  distinction 
highly  characteristic  of  Egyptian  usage,  and  noticed  by  pro- 
fane authors.  The  court  of  the  king  was  composed  of  the 
sons  of  the  most  distinguished  priests;  wdiile  the  state-offi- 
cers were  taken  from  other  orders  of  society.§  Such  inciden- 
tal and  undesigned  allusions  as  these  to  peculiar  customs, 
may  well  arrest  attention.  Tliey  are  the  signature  of  truth. 
The  knowledge  of  an  impostor,  writing  in  a  distant  age  and 
country,  would  not  be  likely  to  be  so  minute  and  accurate  ; 
neither  would  it  manifest  itself  in  a  w^ay  so  simple  and  nat- 
ural. Such  a  knowledge  we  should  expect  to  find  in  Moses, 
but  in  no  one  else,  by  whom  the  Pentateuch  could  possibly 
be  composed  ;  and  the  fact,  that  the  writing  does  actually 
on  almost  every  page,  exhibit  this  knowledge,  is  a  strong 
argument  in  support  of  its  Mosaic  origin.jj 

The  author  of  the  Pentateuch  describes  the  fear  of  Pharaoh 
lest  the  Israelites  should  multiply,  and,  when  war  fell  out, 
should  join  the  invading  force,  and  fight  against  the  Egyp- 
tians.T  A  most  reasonable  apprehension  ;  for  the  inhabitants 
of  the  adjacent  deserts  are  the  natural  enemies  of  Egypt,  and 
when  these  find  allies  among  the  Egyptians  themselves,  the 
country  is  in  the  greatest  peril.  That  this  is  not  an  imagin- 
ary danger,  the  history  of  the  Bedouins  in  Egypt  abundantly 
proves.     These  have  made  common  cause  with  the  foreign 

*  Gen  xli.  14.    Wilk.  v.  iii.  pp.  357,  358. 

t  Herod,  ii.  35.  %  Gen.  1.  7.        §  Heeren,  Ideen,  S.  337. 

II  Hengsten.  pp.  70-78.  H  Exod.  i.  10. 


214r  COMMENT AEIES    ON   THE 

invaders  against  all  the  powers  that  have  successively  held 
possession  of  Egypt, — the  Arabs,  the  Saracens,  the  Turko- 
mans, the  Memlook  sultans,  and  the  Osmanlies.  The  view- 
given  by  the  Pentateuch  of  Pharaoh's  dread  of  the  Hebrews 
is,  therefore,  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  state  of  things  in 
Egypt.  So  also  does  the  method  which  it  represents  him  as 
adopting  to  prevent  their  increase,  accord  with  the  known 
severity  of  those  proud  sovereigns  towards  foreigners,  the 
objects  of  a  boundless  hatred  and  contempt.* 

According  to  the  Pentateuch,  Pharaoh  made  the  life  of  the 
Israelites  bitter  with  hard  bondage  in  mortar  and  brick,  and 
one  of  the  ingredients  in  the  manufacture  of  the  bricks  was 
straw.f  The  recent  scientific  explorations  in  Egypt  show, 
that  chopped  straw  is  found  in  the  composition  of  the  ancient 
Egyptian  bricks.:}:  Straw  was  used,  according  to  Eosellini,§ 
to  give  greater  firmness  and  durability  to  the  bricks,  they 
being  for  the  most  part  not  burned  in  the  fire,  but  dried  in 
the  sun.  A  picture  has  been  found  in  a  tomb  at  Thebes,  of 
which  Rosellinil  furnishes  a  drawing,  and  which  he  does 
not  doubt  is  a  picture  representing  the  Hebrews  engaged  in 
making  brick.  "  Of  the  laborers,"  he  says,  "  some  are  era- 
ployed  in  transporting  the  clay  in  vessels,  some  in  inter- 
mingling it  with  the  straw,  others  are  taking  the  bricks  out 
of  the  form  and  placing  them  in  rows,  still  others,  with  a 
piece  of  wood  upon  their  back  and  ropes  on  each  side,  cany 
away  the  bricks  already  burned  or  dried.  Their  dissimilarity 
to  the  Egyptians  appears  at  the  first  view ;  the  complexion, 
physiognomy,  and  beard  permit  us  not  to  be  mistaken  in 
supposing  them  to  be  Hebrews.  Among  the  Hebrews,  four 
Egyptians,  very  distinguishable  by  their  mein,  figure,  and 
color,  are  seen,"  &c.  &c.  One  of  the  most  interesting  points 
in  this  picture  is   tlie  intermixture  of  Egyptians  with    the 

*  Hengsten.  pp.  79,  80.         f  Ex.  i.  14,  v.  7.        J  Rosel.  vol.  2,  p.  252. 
§  Vol.  2,  p.  259.  II  Vol.  2,  pp.  254,  seq. 


LAWS   OF   THE   AlfCIENT   HEBREWS.  215 

Hebrews  in  their  servile  labors.  It  throws  light  upon  an  ex- 
traordinary circumstance  connected  with  the  exode,  the  fact, 
namely,  that  the  Israelites  were  accompanied  by  a  mixed  mul- 
titude of  Egyptians,*  They  M'ere  described  by  the  author  of 
the  Pentateuch  as  a  rabble,  a  populace,  hewers  of  wood  and 
drawers  of  water,  that  is,  as  very  poor,  as  the  lowest  servants. 
Just  such  people,  native  Egyptians,  we  should  expect  to  find 
in  Egypt,  as  the  result  of  the  system  of  caste ;  and  just  such, 
both  classical  authors  and  the  monuments  testify  existed 
there  in  great  numbers. f  Regarded  as  unclean,  they  were 
debarred  all  intercourse  with  their  brethren,  and  not  per- 
mitted so  much  as  to  enter  the  temples.  These  the  picture 
places  on  a  level  with  the  hated  and  despised  foreigners. 
AYhat  more  natural  than  that,  sharing  with  the  Hebrews  a 
common  misery,  many  of  them,  at  least,  should  choose  to  be 
jDartakers  of  their  pilgrimage  ?:{: 

The  Pentateuch  represents  the  mother  of  Moses  as  taking 
a  chest  of  papyrus,  smearing  it  with  bitumen  and  pitch, 
putting  the  child  in  it,  and  then  placing  it  among  the  reeds 
on  the  edge  of  the  Nile.§  The  mention  of  these  materials, — 
papyrus,  bitumen,  and  pitch, — shows  the  author's  acquaint 
ance  with  Egypt.  Pitch  is  found  in  Egyptian  objects  be- 
longing to  the  most  remote  times.l  Bitumen  was  a  chiet 
ingredient  in  embalming.^  The  papyrus  plant  was  used  in 
Egypt,  and  only  there,  in  the  manufacture  of  various  articles, 
as  mats,  cliots,  baskets,  sandals,  and  even  boats  ;  and  that  at 
an  early  day,  as  the  sculptures  testify.**  In  the  most  ancient 
of  these,  the  papyrus  is  found  with  writing  upon  it.f  f 

According  to  the  Pentateuch,  Moses  carried  a  rod  as  his 

*  Ex.  xii.  38.        t  Herod.  B.  2,  c.  47.    Wilk.  v.  1,  p.  285.    Heeren,  S.  150 
t  Hengsten.  pp.  81-86.  ^  Ex.  ii.  3. 

|]  Hengsten.  p.  87.  1[  Diod.  19,  99. 

**  Wilk.  V.  3,  pp.  62,  146.     Herod.  2,  96.     Plut  de  Is.  et  Osir.  p  395, 
according  to  which  Isis  is  borne  upon  a  boat  of  papyrus.     Rosel.  U.  3.  p.  124. 
tt  Wilk.  3,  150.     Hengsten  pp.  86,  87. 


216  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

inseparable  companion,*  and  each  of  the  magicians  did  the 
same.f  The  monuments:}:  show  that  persons  of  rank,  both 
priests  and  nobles,  were  accustomed  to  carry  a  staff,  when 
thev  went  abroad. § 

The  name  of  the  Israelitish  officers,  wliom  the  task-masters 
of  Pharaoh  placed  over  them,  was,  according  to  Hengsten- 
berg,  "  the  writers."!  And  this  designation  he  pronounces 
highly  characteristic  of  the  state  of  things  in  Egypt.  There 
was  a  time,  when  the  argument  against  the  authenticity  of  the 
Pentateuch,  derived  from  the  supposed  non-existence  of  the 
art  of  writing  in  the  age  when  it  purports  to  have  been  writ- 
ten, was  deemed  very  cogent.  But  the  time  is  gone  by,  when 
any  weight  can  be  attached  to  such  reasoning.  The  monu- 
ments prove  conclusively,  that  in  no  country  of  the  ancient 
world  was  facility  in  writing  so  great,  in  none  were  the  ma- 
terials for  writing  so  perfect,  and  in  none  was  the  passion  for 
writing  so  incorporated  into  the  habits  and  business  of  the 
people,  as  in  Egypt ;  and  that,  too,  at  a  period  anterior  to  the 
time  of  Moses,  and  even  of  Joseph.  In  this  opinion  scholars 
best  qualified  to  judge  upon  the  subject,  concur, — as  Wilkin- 
son,^ Rosellini,**  Salvolini,ff  Gesenius,:}::}:  Ev7ald,§§  and 
others,  "  "We  must  shut  our  eyes  against  the  clearest  light," 
says  Rosellini,!  ||  "  if  we  would  deny  that  the  art  of  reading  and 
writing  was  generally  studied  and  practised  in  ancient  Egypt, 
to  as  great  a  degree  at  least  as  it  now  is  among  us."  So 
that  it  turns  out,  that  the  many  passages  in  the  Pentateuch, 
implying  a  great  extension  of  the  art  of  writing  among  the 
Hebrews  in  the  time  of  Moses,  are  founded  in  truth,  and  just 

*  Ex.  iv.  2.  t  Ex.  vii.  12.  t  Wilk.  V.  3,  p.  386. 

§  Hengsten.  p.  88.  ||  P.  89.  ^  Wilk.  3,  152.      . 

**  V.  II.  3,  p.  272,  seq.         ft  Campagne  de  Rhamses,  p.  123. 
XX  Appendix  to  his  Hebrew  Gram.  pul>lished  a  short  time  before  his 
death. 

I?  His  latest  work,  Goschiohte  dee  Volkes  Israel,  V.  1,  pp.  68-71. 
I|||   V.  n.  3.  p.  239. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  217 

make  known  what  could  not  have  been  otherwise.  Thus, 
instead  of  invalidating,  they  confirm  the  narrative.  They 
witness  not  against,  but  for  its  Mosaic  origin,  and  its  entire 
trustworthiness.* 

The  Israelites  were  directed,  when  they  came  into  the 
promised  land,  to  erect  great  stones,  and  write  upon  them  all 
the  words  of  the  law.  The  stones  were  to  be  prepared  for 
receiving  the  inscriptions  by  "  plastering  them  with  plaster."f 
In  this  mode  of  preparation  there  is  a  clear  Egyptian  refer- 
ence. It  appears  from  the  testimony  of  Wilkinson,:}:  that 
sandstone  and  even  granite  were  often  covered  with  a  kind 
of  stucco,  before  the  inscriptions  or  paintings  were  made 
upon  them.§ 

According  to  the  Mosaic  law,  when  stripes  were  inflicted, 
the  guilty  person  was  to  "  lie  down  and  be  beaten."||  This 
was  precisely  the  Egyptian  mode.  "Wilkinson^  describes  a 
picture  of  an  Egyptian  bastinado,  in  which  the  culprits,  men 
and  boys,  were  laid  flat  on  the  ground,  while  the  punishment 
was  administered.** 

The  insolent  pride  and  insane  obstinacy,  which  the  Penta- 
teuch ascribes  to  Pharaoh,  representing  him  as  saying,  "  Who 
is  Jehovah,  that  I  should  hear  his  voice  ?"  and  as  preferring 
to  go  to  destruction,  with  his  land  and  people,  rather  than 
yield  to  the  divine  command, ff  are,  as  fully  shown  by  the 
monuments:}::}:  in  various  ways,  in  accordance  with  the  gen- 
uine spirit  of  the  Egyptian  sovereigns.  These  sovereigns 
were  accustomed  to  style  themselves  "kings  of  the  whole 
world, "§§  and  they  even  carried  their  arrogance  to  such  a 
pitch  as  to  claim  divine  honors.  11 

The  author  of  the  Pentateuch  represents  Jehovah  as  threat- 

*  Hengsten.  pp.  89-91.  f  Deut.  xvii.  2.  J  V.  3,  p.  300. 

§  Hengsten.  p.  91.  |1  Deut.  xxv.  2.  f  V.  2,  p.  41. 

**  Hengsten.  p.  92.  ff  Ex.  v.  et  seq. 

XX  Champollion,  p.  227.  U  Ibid-  P-  231. 

||||Ib=d.257.  Rosel.v.I.l,  p.  115.  Wilkvl.p.43.  Hengsten. pp. 94, 95. 


218  COMMENTARIES   ON    THE 

ening,  that  blood  should  be  in  all  Egypt,  both  in  wood  and 
in  stone,*  that  is,  as  our  translators  have  rightly  supplied, 
vessels  of  these  materials.  A  remarkable  expression,  con- 
taining a  wholly  unpremeditated  and  most  important  Egyp- 
tian reference,  viz.  to  the  custom  of  filtering  the  turbid  water 
of  the  Nile  in  vessels  of  wood  and  of  stone,  chiefly  the 
latter.f  The  knowledge,  exhibited  by  the  author,  of  the 
common  method  of  pui'ifying  water  in  Egypt,  is  not  so  im- 
portant as  the  manner  of  the  exhibition.  lie  does  not,  as 
Hengstenberg  aptly  expresses  it,  obtrude  his  knowledge. 
He  supposes  that  a  mere  hint  is  enough  for  his  immediate 
readers,  who  were  themselves  acquainted  with  the  peculiari- 
ties of  Egypt.:}:  These  two  little  words  "wood  and  stone," 
thus  inartificially  introduced  in  this  connexion,  certainly 
afford  both  a  striking  and  a  strong  proof,  that  Moses  'is  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  same  verse§  contains  a  direction  to  Moses  to  take  his 
rod  and  stretch  out  his  hand  upon  the  waters  of  Egypt,  upon 
its  streams,  upon  its  canals,  upon  its  pools,  and  upon  all  its 
collections  of  waters.  Here  is  a  classification  of  the  waters 
of  Egypt,  accurate  to  a  tittle.  The  streams  are  the  arms  of 
the  Nile.  The  canals  are  the  artificial  ditches  which  abound- 
ed in  Egypt.  The  pools  are  the  stagnant  ponds  formed  by 
the  Nile,  of  which  there  are  many.  And  the  collections  of 
water  are  all  the  other  standing  water,  the  lakes  and  puddles 
at  a  distance  from  the  Nile.|| 

According  to  the  Pentateuch,  Moses  was  directed  to  go  to 
Pharaoh  in  the  morning  when  he  went  out  to  the  water,  and 
to  meet  him  on  the  banks  of  the  Nile.T  This  is  an  entirely 
artless  and  undesigned  allusion  to  a  prominent  superstition  of 
Egypt, — that  of  worshipping  the  Nile  as  a  divinity.  In  the 
most  ancient  times  divine  honors  were  paid  to  this  river  by 

*  Ex.  vii.  19. 

t  Mavr,  Reise,  Th.  2,  S.  19,  Le  Bruyn,  v.  2,  p.  103.  Thevenot,  v.  1,  p.  245. 

X  Hengsten.  pp.  110,  111.  §  Ex.  vii.  19. 

II  Hengsten.  p.  111.  1[  Ex.  vii.  15,  viii.  20. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  219 

the  Egyptians.  Herodotus*  speaks  of  the  priests  of  the  Nile. 
Plutarclif  makes  it  identical  with  Osiris.  Lucianij:  calls  it  a 
common  divinity  of  all  the  Egyptians.  Heliodorus§  names  it 
the  Egyptian  Jupiter.  The  monuments!  corroborate  this 
testimony  of  the  classical  writers.  One  of  the  paintings  rep- 
resents Remeses  II.  as  offering  wine  to  the  god  of  the  Nile, 
who,  in  the  hieroglyphic  inscription,  is  called  "  the  life-giving 
father  of  all  existences."*[ 

The  Hebrews  dwelt  in  that  part  of  Lower  Egypt  which 
borders  on  the  Red  Sea.  According  to  the  representations 
of  the  Pentateuch,  Pharaoh  was  able,  on  the  instant,  to  bring 
into  the  field  almost  the  entire  martial  power  of  his  king- 
dom.** This  seems  incredible  to  a  person  unacquainted  with 
the  disposition  of  the  military  forces  of  Egypt ;  but  to  one 
who  knows  the  state  of  things  on  this  point,  nothing  can  be 
more  natural  and  probable.  It  was  precisely  on  this  border, 
the  most  exposed  of  all  the  parts  of  Egypt,  that,  according  to 
the  accounts  of  profane  authors,  almost  the  entire  military 
power  of  Egypt  was  concentrated.  Herodotus  states,  that 
sixteen  districts  were  allotted  to  the  military  order  within  the 
Delta,  while,  in  all  Middle  and  Upper  Egypt,  only  two  dis- 
tricts were  in  possession  of  the  soldiers. ff 

From  an  industrious  and  learned  survey  of  all  that  appears 
in  the  Pentateuch  on  the  subject,  Hengstenberg:{::j:  arrives  at 
the  conclusion,  apparently  a  just  and  solid  one,  that  the  only 
force,  with  which  Pharaoh  pursued  the  fleeing  Israelites, 
consisted  of  chariots  and  chariot-warriors.  Cavalry,  in  the 
modern  acceptation  of  the  term,  there  was  none ;  and  infan- 
try, under  the  circumstances,  could  not  have  taken  part  in 
the  pursuit.     Now,  how  does  this  rej^resentation,  made  by 

*  B.  2,  c.  90.  t  De  Is.  et  Osir.  p.  363. 

X  Jupiter  Tragoed.  0pp.  v.  2,  699.  |  Aeth.  9,  435.  5,  203. 

|]   ChampoUion,  In  den  Briefer  aus  Egypten,  S.  121. 
1[  Hengsten.  pp.  112-114.  **  Exod.  xiv. 

ft  Heeren.  S.  37.  J+  P.  134,  seq. 


220  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  agree  with  the  information 
derived  from  ancient  profane  writers,  and  from  the  recently 
discovered  monuments  of  Egypt?  In  the  most  exact  and 
remarkable  manner.  Homer*  represents  chariots  as  consti- 
tuting the  principal  strength  of  the  Egyptian  army.  Cham- 
pollion,  drawing  his  inference  from  the  monuments,  says  of 
the  war  chariots  :f  "  This  was  the  cavalry  of  the  age ;  cavalry 
properly  speaking  did  not  exist  then  in  Egypt."  Rosellini:}: 
informs  us,  that,  whenever  the  armies  are  represented  on  the 
great  monuments  of  Egypt,  they  are  composed  of  troops  of 
infantry  and  ranks  of  chariots.  "Wilkinson,§  though  not  ad- 
mitting that  the  Egyptians  had  no  horsemen  at  all,  yet  agrees 
with  Rosellini  in  the  main  point,  viz.  that  their  principal 
military  force  consisted  in  chariots. I 

The  author  of  the  Pentateuch^  represents  Miriam,  after  the 
triumphal  hymn  on  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  had  been  sung 
by  Moses  and  the  children  of  Israel,  as  taking  a  timbrel,  and 
all  the  women  as  following  her,  and  the  whole  train  as  an- 
swering the  men  in  responsive  notes,  "  Sing  ye  to  Jehovah," 
&c.  The  monuments**  reproduce  this  scene  in  all  its  parts. 
Separate  choirs  of  men  and  women  are  rej^resented  on  them, 
singing  in  alternate  responses ;  the  timbrel,  or  tambourine, 
is  represented  as  the  instrument  of  the  women,  as  the  flute  is 
that  of  the  men ;  and  the  j^laying  of  the  tambourine,  unac- 
companied, as  here,  by  other  instruments,  is  represented  in 
connexion  with  singing  and  the  dance.  Further,  it  ajDpears 
from  the  monuments,  that  music  had  eminently  a  religious 
destination  in  Egypt  ;f  f  that  the  timbrel  was  specially  devoted 

*  II.  9,  383.  t  P.  442  of  German  Transl.  of  his  Letters. 

X  V.  II.  3,  p.  232.  ?  V.  1,  pp.  288,  335. 

II  Hengsten.pp.  132-136.         T[  Ex.  xv.  20,  21. 

**  Champ.  S.  53,  der  Briefe.    Wilk.  v.  2,  pp.  253,  254,  314.    Rosel.  II. 
3,  p.  37  seq. 
tt  Rosel.  II.  3,  p.  78. 


LAWS   OF  THE   ANCIENT   HEBKEWS.  221 

^0  sacred  uses  ;*  and  that  religious  dances  were  performed  in 
the  worship  of  Osiris.f 

The  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  Numb.  10,  speaks  of  two 
silver  trumpets,  used  for  calling  the  congregation  together, 
for  giving  the  signal  to  break  up  the  camp,  for  use  in  war, 
and  for  festal  occasions ;  and  in  Lev.  25,  of  another  kind  of 
trumpet,  by  whose  blast  the  year  of  jubilee  was  proclaimed. 
From  Josh.  6  :  4,  it  appears  that  this  last  was  of  a  crooked 
form,  since  it  is  there  called  interchangeably  a  trumpet  and  a 
horn.  The  other  sort,  therefore,  was  the  straight  trumpet. 
The  monuments  show,  that  trumpets  were  used  in  Egypt 
for  military  purposes  as  far  back  as  the  earliest  times  of  the 
Pharaohs.:}:  The  crooked  trumpet,  indeed,  is  not  found  on 
them ;  but  Eustathius§  mentions  an  instrument  of  this  sort, 
whose  invention  he  ascribes  to  Osiris,  and  which  he  says  was 
used  for  assembling  the  people  to  sacrifice.  It  is  very  ob- 
servable, that  the  straight  trumpet  only  was  in  general  use 
in  both  nations,  and  especially  that  in  both  it  alone  was  em- 
ployed in  war.  II 

But  I  have  already  exceeded  the  space  proper  to  be  de- 
voted to  this  branch  of  my  subject,  and,  tempting  as  the  field 
is,  must  withdraw  the  hand.  The  Egyptian  references  de- 
tailed above  are  but  a  portion,  and  that  by  no  means  the 
larger  portion,  of  such  references  contained  in  the  Pentateuch. 
Indeed,  these  allusions  are  incomparably  more  numerous  and 
direct  than  any  one  had  supposed,  till  they  were  brought  to 
light  by  the  learned  industry  of  Hengstenberg.  Both  the 
Egyptian  references  here  given,  and  those  which  are  omitted, 
everywhere  exhibit  a  writer  possessed  of  the  most  ample  and 
exact  knowledge  of  Egypt  in  its  topography,  climate,  soil, 
tillage,  productions,  animals,  resources,  arts,  superstitions, 
laws,  manners,  customs,  and  civilization.     Much  light  has 

*  Wilk.  V.  2,  p.  316.         t  Rosel.  II.  3,  p.  96.    Hengsten.  pp.  136,  137. 
X  Wilk.  V.  1,  p.  297.  I  On  the  Iliad,  v.  4,  p.  65. 

11  Wilk.  V.  2,  260,  262.     Hengsten.  pp.  137,  138. 


222  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

been  tlirown  upon  all  these  points  by  the  late  researches  of 
English,  French,  Italian,  and  German  archaeologists ;  but  not 
one  of  their  innumerable  discoveries  comes  into  conflict  with 
any  of  the  statements  contained  in  the  books  of  Moses,  One 
of  the  most  enlightened,  discriminating,  and  cautious  of  these 
scholars, — Sir  Gardner  "Wilkinson, — bears  this  distinct  and 
important  testimony :  "  Wherever  any  fact  is  mentioned  in 
the  bible  history,  we  do  not  discover  any  thing  on  the  monu- 
ments, which  tends  to  contradict  it.  '*  No ;  in  all  the  refer- 
ences to  Egypt  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  though  so  many 
and  so  various,  though  scattered  through  every  part  of  the 
writing,  and  mixed  up  with  almost  every  topic  which  it  era- 
braces,  there  cannot  be  detected  a  single  element,  which  is 
not  clearly  and  decisively  Egyptian.  Could  a  fictitious  nar- 
rative, fabricated  in  a  remote  country  and  a  distant  age,  ac- 
complish such  a  result  ?  "  Credat  Judaeus  Apella  !"  But 
even  this  statement  does  not  bring  out  the  argument  in  its 
strongest  light.  It  is  not  so  much  the  extent  or  the  accuracy 
of  the  writer's  knowledge  of  Egypt,  as  it  is  the  manner  in 
which  he  brings  it  out,  that  seals  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
narrative.  This  is  always  so  incidental,  so  unpremeditated, 
so  undesigned,  so  perfectly  inartificial,  and  so  destitute  of 
all  explanatory  remarks  as  not  necessary  for  his  immediate 
readers,  as  to  constitute  an  indubitable  signature  of  truth. 
Such  a  manner  would  be  quite  natural  in  Moses,  but  most 
unnatural,  and  indeed  impossible,  in  a  mythic  historian.  It 
is  a  manner  which  cannot  be  assumed  by  an  impostor.  "We 
have  here,  then,  both  in  the  Egyptian  knowledge  of  the 
r.uthor  and  in  the  manner  of  its  exhibition,  a  strong  internal 
jiroof  of  the  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch,  of  its  composition 
in  the  age  of  Moses,  and  consequently  of  its  Mosaic  origin. 
He  who  is  not  convincea  by  it  of  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  work,  is  certainly  ver^^  far  removed  from  credu- 
lity ;  but  then  he  stands  at  an  equal  distance  from  that  intel 
ligent  candor,  which  feels  and  owns  the  force  of  truth. 
*  Anc.  E^.  1.  34. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  223 


CHAPTER  y. 

Divine  Legation  of  Moses. 

The  divine  legation  of  Moses  is  a  legitimate  inference  from 
the  argument  contained  in  the  last  chapter.  If  the  credibility 
of  the  Pentateuch  be  once  admitted,  then  it  follows,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  that,  in  establishing  the  Hebrew  constitution, 
Moses  was  the  accredited  minister  of  Jehovah ;  since, 
throughout  the  entire  writing,  he  constantly  claims  to  have 
acted  in  that  capacity.  Here  I  might  rest  the  proof  of  the 
divinity  of  Moses's  mission  ;  but,  that  nothing  may  be  want- 
ing to  the  foundation  of  our  faith,  I  propose,  in  the  present 
chapter,  to  adduce  three  additional  topics  of  argument  to 
establish  the  point  in  hand,  to  wit,  the  theology,  the  morality, 
and  the  miracles  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  theology  of  the  Mosaic  code  attests  its  divine  original. 
This  is  the  first  proposition  to  be  illustrated.  Here,  as  the 
basis  of  the  following  argument,*  the  principle  is  assumed, 
that  a  religious  element  belongs  to  the  original  constitution  of 
man.  It  is  instinctive  with  him  to  fear  the  power,  to  rever- 
ence the  authority,  to  propitiate  the  favor,  to  lean  upon  the 
help,  and  to  imitate  the  conduct,  of  some  superior  being.  He 
is  thus  impelled,  by  a  law  of  his  nature,  to  worship  a  divinity. 

*  For  many  of  the  thoughts,  and  some  of  the  expressions,  contained  in 
this  argument,  the  ^v^ite^  acknowledges  himself  indebted  to  the  ingenious 
anonymous  author  of  the  Philosophy  of  the  Plan  of  Salvation,  to  which 
•work  the  reader  is  referred. 


224  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

Accordingly,  we  find  no  nation,  either  of  ancient  or  modern 
times,  sunk  so  low  in  the  scale  of  rational  existence,  as  to  be 
without  some  notion  of  a  god,  some  rites  of  worship,  and  some 
sentiments  of  religion, 

Now,  it  belongs  to  the  essential  nature  of  religious  worship 
to  assimilate  the  m.oral  attributes  of  the  worshippers  to  those 
of  the  object  of  worship.  The  heathen  themselves  recognize 
this  principle.  "The  sum  of  religion,"  said  Pythagoras,  "  is 
to  be  like  him  whom  thou  worshippest."  "  Think  of  Buddah," 
say  the  priests  of  that  pretended  deity,  "  and  you  will  be 
transformed  into  Buddah."  This  is  consonant  to  the  highest 
reason.  The  heart  seeks  to  be  in  favor  with  its  god ;  and 
what  more  natural  means  to  that  end,  than  the  imitation  of 
his  qualities  and  actions, — the  assimilation  of  our  character  to 
his  ?  The  god,  whom  we  worship,  must  constitute  our  ideal 
of  perfection ;  and  the  nearer  we  approach  our  ideal,  the 
liigher,  in  our  own  estimation,  will  be  the  degree  of  excel- 
lence which  we  have  reached.  Every  act  of  worship,  there- 
fore, every  prayer,  every  devout  aspiration,  every  serious 
thought  of  the  divine  nature,  must  tend  to  make  us  one  with 
our  god,  and  to  transfer  to  ourselves  the  impress  of  his  char- 
acter. 

The  history  of  idolatry  confirms  this  reasoning.  The  gods 
of  Egypt  were  un  warlike  ;  as  a  natural  consequence,  the  ordi- 
nary policy  of  Egypt  was  peaceful.  Odin  and  Thor,  those 
sanguinary  deities  of  the  north,  turned  their  worshippers  into 
bloodhounds,  to  whom  war  was  tnei'r  native  element,  and  the 
scent  of  carnage  more  grateful  than  incense.  One  of  the  hero- 
gods  of  the  Northmen  is  represented,  in  their  wild  mythology, 
as  having  committed  suicide  ;  and  his  followers,  who  had 
failed  to  die  in  battle,  imitated  the  horrid  deed,  lest  a  natural 
death  should  abridge  their  pleasures  in  the  halls  of  Valhalla. 
Yenus,  that  impersonation  of  sensual  pleasure,  was  the  chief 
divinity  of  the  Cyprians  and  the  Corinthians.  What  followed  ? 
The  persons  highest  in  honor  in  those  places  were  prostitutes, 


1.AWS    Ob    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  $525 

wlio  exercised  their  vocations  within  the  very  temples  of  the 
goddess ;  and  lust  and  sensuality  held  an  undivided  empire 
over  all  hearts. 

Idolatry  had  overspread  the  earth,  and  was  the  universal 
religion  of  mankind,  when  the  law  v/as  proclaimed  from  Sinai. 
Would  the  reader  learn  its  influence?  Let  him  listen  to  the 
testimony  of  two  of  the  most  distinguished  moralists  among 
the  ancients.  Plato  says  :  "  Tiie  histories  of  the  gods  ought 
not  to  be  rehearsed  in  public,  lest  they  should  influence  the 
youth  to  the  commission  of  crimes."  Seneca  says  :  "  How 
great  is  the  madness  of  men  !  They  lisp  the  most  abominable 
prayers ;  and  if  a  man  is  found  listening,  they  are  silent. 
What  a  man  ought  not  to  hear,  they  do  not  blush  to  relate  to 
the  gods.  If  any  one  considers  what  things  they  do,  instead 
of  decencj',  he  will  find  indecency  ;  instead  of  the  honorable, 
the  unworthy  ;  instead  of  the  I'ational,  the  insane." 

The  labor  of  unfolding,  in  detail,  the  nature,  extent,  ten- 
dencies, and  results  of  the  ancient  idolatry,  is  reserved  for  a 
subsequent  part  of  this  work.*  But  it  may  be  observed,  in 
passing,  that  all  history  abounds  with  testimonies,  similar  to 
those  cited  above.  There  was  scarcely  an  object,  element,  or 
iiving  creature  in  nature,  good  or  bad,  which  did  not  receive 
a  heart-debasing  and  life-corrupting  worship.  Dead  men, 
celestial  luminaries,  light,  air,  wind,  fire,  hills,  streams,  groves, 
beasts,  birds,  reptiles,  plants,  darkness,  storm,  pestilence,  the 
fates,  the  furies,  and  other  like  objects,  were  deified,  and 
adored  by  terrified  and  trembling  votaries.  By  a  system  of 
worship,  so  blind  and  degrading,  reason,  truth,  and  virtue 
were  well  nigh  obliterated  from  the  human  heart ;  and,  in 
their  place,  foll}^,  fiilsehood,  and  vice  reigned  with  almost  un- 
disputed sway.  Not  only  in  the  ruder  and  more  uncivilized, 
but  even  in  the  most  enlightened  and  polished  nations  of  gen- 
tile antiquity,  immoralities  the  most  revolting,  and  crimes  the 
ir.ost  unnatural,  weie  sanctioned  by  the  example,  and  conse- 

*  See  the  Chapter  on  tiie  Hebrew  Theocracy  in  the  Second  Book. 
15 


226  OOMiSrENTARIES    ON    THE 

crated  in  the  worship  of  the  g<xls.  Lewdness  was  practised  in 
the  temples,  and  liiunan  victims  bled  upon  the  altars  of  these 
impure  and  sangninaiy  deities. 

An  important  inrpiirj  arises  here  ;  an  inquiry  of  such  mag- 
nitude, that  its  solution  involved  the  moral  destinies  of  the 
human  race  It  is,  whether  man,  by  his  own  unaided  eiforts, 
was  able  to  overthrow  so  vast  a  sj'stera  of  error  and  corrup- 
tion, and  to  replace  it  with  the  reign  of  truth  and  purity?  A 
candid  survey  of  the  difBculties  to  be  overcome,  taken  in  con- 
nexion with  the  condition  and  powers  of  human  nature,  must 
induce  the  sad  conviction,  that  no  such  ability  inhered  in 
man,  that  do  such  means  were  within  his  grasp. 

What  would  be  the  very  first  step  in  such  a  labor  ?  The 
production  of  a  perfect  God  ; — the  creation  of  an  object  of 
worship,  pure,  holy,  just,  wise,  good, — in  short,  possessing  all 
the  proper  attributes  of  divinity  in  an  infinite  degree.  And 
by  what  agent  must  this  idea  of  a  perfect  being  be  originated 
and  developed  ?  By  imperfect  man, — a  being  of  high  native 
endowments,  undoubtedly  ;  but  with  a  blight  resting  upon 
all  his  powers, — the  reason,  the  understanding,  the  will,  the 
aficctions.  Here  is  a  plain  impossibility.  The  stream  can- 
not rise  higher  than  the  fountain  ;  much  less  can  the  finite 
originate  the  infinite,  the  impure  the  pure,  the  creature  of 
ail  hour,  the  uncreated  and  eternal  one.  Man  could  not 
invest  his  deities  with  a  holier  character  than  belonged  to 
himself.  He  could  transfer  his  own  imperfect  attributes  to 
them,  and  that  was  the  limit  of  his  power  in  respect  of 
making  gods,  A  sagacious  and  philosophic  heathen  has 
perceived  and  expressed,  in  one  brief  but  pregnant  sentence, 
the  whole  truth  in  reference  to  this  matter.     "  Instead  of  the 

*  See  on  the  subject  of  ai\cicnt  idolatry  Mainion.  de  Idol.  Euseb.  Praep. 
Evang.  L.  1.  C.  9.  Leland's  Adv.  of  Rev,  Ft.  1.  Bryant's  Analysis  of 
Mythology.  Cic.  de  Nat.  Dcor.  Voss.  de  Idol.  Selden  de  Diis  Syriis. 
Graves  on  the  Pent.  Pt.  2.  Lect.  1.  Joscphus  con.  Apion.  And  the  clas- 
sical writers  passim. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  227 

transfer  to  men  of  that  which  is  divine,"  says  Cicero,  "  they 
transferred  human  sins  to  the  gods,  and  then  experienced  again 
the  necessary  reaction." 

But  suppose  this  first  obstacle  overcome,  and  a,  snitahle 
object  of  worship  imagined  and  unfolded.  Another  difficulty, 
of  scarcely  inferior  magnitude,  would  instantly  start  up  in 
the  path  of  him,  who  should  undertake  the  more  than  Her- 
culean task  of  uprooting  idolatry,  and  replacing  it  with  a 
holier  worship.  How  to  persuade  men  to  forsake  their  follies, 
and  embrace  the  truth  ?  "  Hie  labor,  hoc  opus  est."  The 
mere  revelation  of  a  proper  object  of  worship  is  not  enough. 
Such  revelation  must  be  accompanied  with  a  power  suffi- 
ciently great  to  arrest  men's  attention,  to  convince  them  of 
the  impotence  of  their  idols,  to  induce  them  to  forsake  those 
lying  vanities,  and  to  worship  the  holy  being,  made  known 
to  them.  But  such  a  power  as  this  belongs  to  God  alone, 
and  can  be  wielded  by  none  but  those  whom  he  employs  and 
commissions. 

Of  all  this,  the  following  is  the  sura.  Man's  nature  is 
religious.  He  instinctively  worships  some  being,  whom  he 
regards  as  God.  It  is  the  nature  of  religious  w^orship  to  assi- 
milate the  character  of  the  worshipper  to  that  of  the  being 
"A^orshipped.  The  objects  of  worship,  everywhere  throughout 
the  ancient  world,  were  corrupt  and  corrupting.  In  order  to 
man's  moral  improvement,  he  must  have  a  holy  object  of 
worship.  It  is  obviously  impossible  for  an  imperfect  and 
sinful  man  to  originate  the  idea  of  a  perfect  and  sinless  god. 
And  even  if  this  impossibility  could  be  overcome,  man  does 
not  possess  the  power  necessary  to  eradicate  idolatry,  and 
replace  it  with  a  better  worship.  Men  must,  therefore,  have 
forever  remained  wicked  idolaters,  unless  God  had  interposed 
for  their  deliverance.  But  God  did  interpose.  This  is  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  there  is  a  large  portion  of  mankind  who 
have  renounced  idolatry,  and  now  profess  and  practise  a 
purer  faith.     This  reformed  worship  is  coeval  with  the  Hebrew 


228  CO^IMENTARrES    ON    THE 

polity.  The  gods,  whom  men  invented  and  set  np,  were  as 
imperfect  and  wicked  as  themselves  ;  and  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  they  could  not  be  otherwise,  Moses,  on  the  con- 
trary, revealed  a  holy  and  a  perfect  God.  How  pure,  how 
amiable,  how  sublime,  how  transcendently  glorious  the  cha- 
racter, with  which  this  God  is  invested  by  the  Hebrew  law- 
giver !  "  I  am  that  lam"*  is  the  mysterious  and  awful  title, 
under  which  he  declares  to  the  children  of  men  his  self-exis- 
tence and  eternity.  His  unity  is  announced,  with  majestic 
brevity,  in  the  sentence,  "  Jehovah,  our  God,  is  one  Jeho- 
vah :"  f  His  creative  power,  in  the  sublime  record.  In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth  :  :|:  His 
sole  and  supreme  dominion,  in  the  declaration,  "  Jehovah,  he 
is  God  in  heaven  above,  and  upon  the  earth  beneath  ;  there  is 
none  else  :"  §  And  his  moral  perfections  of  wisdom,  justice, 
holiness,  truth,  goodness,  and  mercy,  in  such  noble  and 
glowing  expressions  as  these  following : — "  Ascribe  ye 
greatness  to  our  God ;  he  is  the  Eock  ;  his  work  is  perfect ; 
for  all  his  ways  are  judgment ;  a  God  of  truth,  and  without 
iniquity,  just  and  right  is  he  ;||  glorious  in  holiness,  fearful 
in  praises,  doing  wonders;^  merciful  and  gracious,  long- 
suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness,  keeping  mercy  for 
thousands,  forgiving  iniquity,  transgression  and  sin."**  To 
this  self-existent,  eternal,  only,  omnipotent,  supreme,  wise, 
just,  holy,  true,  and  merciful  God,  Moses  everywhere  ascribes 
a  providence,  both  sovereign  and  universal,  which  he  re- 
presents, not  only  as  directing  the  government  of  the  uni- 
verse by  general  laws,  but  also  as  superintending  the  conduct 
and  determining  the  fortune  of  every  nation,  of  every  family, 
and  of  every  individual  of  the  human  species.  How  striking 
is  the  contrast,  which  this  sublime  delineation  of  Jehovah  as 
the  maker,   proprietor,    and   sovereign  of  the  universe,   in- 

*  Ex.  iii.  14.  t  Deut.  iv.  39.  J  Gen.  i.  1. 

§  Deut.  iv.  39.  ||  Ibid,  xxxii.  3,  4.  f  Ex.  xv.  11. 

**£x.  xxxiv.  6,  7. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  229 

vested  with  every  conceivable  excellence,  presents  to  the 
grovelling  mythology  of  the  most  enlightened  portions  of 
the  ancient  world,  in  which  the  objects  of  religious  worship 
were  pictured  with  the  passions  and  vices  of  the  fierce  and 
licentious  chieftains  of  the  primitive  ages.  And  Moses  not 
only  revealed  a  perfect  God,  and  published  a  true  theology, 
but  he  also  accompanied  the  revelation  and  the  publication 
with  such  an  exhibition  of  supernatural  power,  as  to  enable 
him  to  overthrow  the  system  of  idolatry,  and  establish  the 
better  faith  upon  its  ruins. 

From  all  this  it  follows,  as  I  conceive,  by  direct  and 
inevitable  inference,  that  Moses  held  a  divine  commission, 
and  that  in  founding  his  constitution  of  government,  and 
proclaiming  its  laws,  he  acted  as  the  legate  and  minister  of 
Heaven.  The  Pentateuch,  so  diverse  from  all  the  produc- 
tions of  philosophic  genius,  and  so  superior  to  them,  presents 
a  remarkable  phenomenon  in  the  intellectual  and  moral  his- 
tory of  our  race.  If  we  admit  the  inspiration  of  its  author, 
the  phenomenon  is  at  once  explained ;  if  we  deny  his  inspi- 
ration, no  rational  solution  of  it  can  be  offered.  The  publi- 
cation of  such  a  theology,  in  such  an  age, — a  theology,  which 
put  to  flight  the  darkness  and  the  error  of  polytheism,  when 
polytheism  had  covered  the  earth  with  the  temples  and  the 
altars  of  its  monster  gods, — cannot  be  satisfactorily  accounted 
for  without  allowing,  and  is  satisfactorily  accounted  for  by 
allowing,  the  truth  of  the  Mosaic  history,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Mosaic  constitution  by  divine  authority. 

The  morality,  not  less  than  the  theology,  of  the  Hebrew 
code,  proves  the  divine  mission  of  the  lawgiver.  This  is  the 
second  point  to  be  opened  in  the  present  argument.  The 
first  thing,  which  attracts  our  attention  here,  is  the  decalogue, 
or  ten  commandments.  These  constitute  a  summary  of 
moral  duty,  of  unequalled  excellence  and  breadth  ;  a  summary, 
containing  the  seminal  principles  of  all  human  virtue;  a 
summary,  so  comprehensive  and  perfect,  that  it  cannot  be 


230  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

improved  by  any  conceivable  addition  or  subtraction.  The 
precepts  of  the  decalogue  alone,  it  has  been  well  and  truly 
said  by  Goguet,*  disclose  more  sublime  truths,  more  max- 
ims essentially  suited  to  the  happiness  of  man,  than  all  the 
writings  of  profane  antiquity  together  can  furnish.  The  more 
one  meditates  upon  them,  the  brighter  and  more  striking 
does  their  wisdom  appear.  Yain  would  be  the  search  among 
the  writings  of  profane  antiquity,  not  merely  of  the  remote 
antiquity  when  the  law  was  published  from  Sinai,  but  of  the 
most  refined  and  philoso2:)hic  ages  of  Greece  and  Kome,  to 
find  so  broad,  so  complete,  and  so  solid  a  basis  of  morality 
as  the  decalogue  exhibits,    f 

It  is  related  of  a  distinguished  lawyer,:}:  who  had  been 
sceptical  on  the  subject  of  divine  revelation,  that  he  under- 
took the  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  with  a  view  of  satisfy- 
ing himself  as  to  the  validity  of  its  claim  to  be  an  inspired 
writing.  "When  he  came  to  the  decalogue,  and  had  given  it 
an  attentive  perusal,  lost  in  admiration  of  its  superhuman 
perfection,  he  exclaimed,  "  "Where  did  Moses  get  that  law  ?" 
To  the  resolution  of  that  question,  he  applied  the  powers  of 
an  acute  and  discriminating  mind,  vigorous  by  original  en- 
dowment, and  disciplined  to  exactness  by  the  study  of  the 
law  and  the  practice  of  the  legal  profession.  The  result  was 
the  removal  of  every  sceptical  doubt,  and  the  attainment 
of  a  clear  and  earnest  conviction  of  the  divine  original  of  the 
law. 

And  how,  indeed,  could  an  enlightened  and  candid  ex- 
amination of  the  decalogue  have  a  different  issue  ?  The  first 
four  commandments  inculcate  that  profound  and  penetrating 
sentiment  of  piety,  which  forms  the  only  immovable  founda- 
tion of  hunum  virtue.  This  part  of  the  decalogue  enjoins 
"  the  adoration  of  the  one  true  God,  who  made  heaven  and 
earth,  the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is ;  who  must,  therefore, 

*  Orig.  of  Laws.  f  J.  Q.  Adams's  Lettert;  to  his  Son. 

X  Tract  321  of  Am,  Tr.  Soc. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  231 

be  iuflnite  in  power,  and  wisdom,  and  goodness  ;  the  object 
of  exclusive  adoration  ;  of  gratitude  for  every  blessing  we 
enjoy ;  of  fear,  for  he  is  a  jealous  God  ;  and  of  hope,  for  he 
is  merciful.  It  prohibits  every  species  of  idolatry ;  whether 
by  associating  false  gods  with  the  true,  or  worshipping  the 
true  by  symbols  or  images.  Commanding  not  to  take  the 
name  of  God  in  vain,  it  enjoins  the  observance  of  all  outward 
respect  for  the  divine  authority,  as  well  as  the  cultivation  of 
inward  sentiments  and  feelings,  suited  to  this  outward  reve- 
rence ;  and  it  establishes  the  obligations  of  oaths,  and,  by 
consequence,  of  all  compacts  and  deliberate  promises ;  a 
principle,  without  which  the  administration  of  laws  would  be 
impracticable,  and  the  bonds  of  society  must  be  dissolved. 
By  commanding  to  keep  holy  the  Sabbath,  as  the  memorial 
of  the  creation,  it  establishes  the  necessity  of  public  worship, 
and  of  a  stated  and  outward  profession  of  the  truths  of  reli- 
gion, as  well  as  of  the  cultivation  of  suitable  feelings :  and  it 
enforces  this  by  a  motive,  which  is  equally  applicable  to  all 
mankind  ;  and  Mdiich  should  have  taught  the  Jew,  that  he 
ought  to  consider  all  nations  as  equally  creatures  of  that  Je- 
hovah whom  he  himself  adored  ;  equally  subject  to  his 
government,  and  if  sincerely  obedient,  equally  entitled  to  all 
the  privileges  his  favor  could  bestow."* 

The  fifth  commandment  enjoins,  as  next  in  importance  to 
the  duty  of  worshipping  the  creator,  that  of  honoring  our 
earthly  parents,  as  those  to  whom  we  owe  the  greatest  of 
earthly  obligations,  and  are  bound  by  the  strongest  of  earthly 
ties.  And  while  the  obligation  of  honoring  father  and 
mother  is  alone  specifically  named,  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
that  the  principle  of  the  law  was  meant  to  be  extended  to  all 
the  duties  arising  out  of  our  domestic  relations,  and  indeed 
to  all  "  the  duties  belonging  to  every  one  in  their  several 
places  and  relations,  as  superiors,  inferiors,  or  equals."f  So 
Philo  Judaeus  +  interprets.     "  In  the  precept,  '  honor  your 

«■  Graves  on  the  Pent.  Pt.  2.    Lect.  2. 

t  Sh.  Cat.  Ans.  to  Ques.  64.  t  OpP-  P-  500. 


232  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

parents,'  (he  sajs)  are  many  laws,  prescribing  tlie  duties  of 
the  young  to  the  old,  of  subjects  to  magistrates,  of  servants 
to  masters,  and  of  those  who  have  received  benefits  to  their 
benefactors." 

After  this  there  follow  four  precepts,  designed  to  restrain 
ns  from  injuring  our  neighbor  in  his  person,  his  property,  his 
conjugal  rights,  and  his  good  name.  Here,  the  reader  will 
observe,  injuries  to  our  neighbor  are  classified  by  the  deca- 
logue. The  classification  is  into  oifences  against  life,  chastity, 
property,  and  character.  In  each  of  these  classes,  the  great- 
est ofFen-ce  is  made  the  object  of  an  express  prohibition. 
Thus  murder  is  forbidden  as  the  greatest  injury  to  life  ; 
adultery,  as  the  greatest  injury  to  chastity ;  theft,  as  the 
greatest  injury  to  property  ;  and  false  witness,  or  perjury,  as 
the  greatest  injury  to  character.  But  the  greater  must  be 
understood  to  include  the  less  ;  and  on  this  principle  both 
Jewish  doctors  and  Christian  divines  have,  with  one  voice, 
interpreted  these  laws.  Agreeably  to  this  view,  the  com- 
mand, "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  forbids,  not  simply  the  act  of 
taking  away  life,  but  all  injury  of  every  kind  to  life  or  limb, 
all  violence,  all  hatred,  all  resentful  passion,  and  every  thing 
which  tends  to  beget  and  foster  that  malignant  and  revengeful 
temper,  which  constitutes  so  material  a  part  of  the  guilt  of 
murder.  Anger  and  railing  are  expressly  affirmed  by  our 
Savior  to  be  violations  of  the  fifth  commandment.*  Li  like 
manner  the  command,  '•  Tlioii  shalt  not  commit  adultery,"  for- 
bids not  merely  the  specific  act  named,  but  also,  as  Philof  ex- 
plains, "  all  irregular  desire  and  licentious  indulgence,"  and, 
as  a  far  greater  than  he  has  said,  even  an  impure  "  look."  ^ 
So  of  all  the  rest.  The  principle  is, — and  every  intelligent 
and  candid  reasoner  will  admit  its  soundness, — that  each  ot 
the  commandments  must  be  understood  to  prohibit,  not  only 
the  extreme  injury  named,  but  every  inferior  degree  of  it  as 
well,  every  injury  kindred  to  it  in  nature,  every  thing,  in 

*  Matt.  V.  22.  t  OPP-  P-  592.  +  Mat.  v.  28. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  233 

short,  calculated  to  prompt  and  lead  to  the  commission  of  it ; 
and  at  the  same  time  to  inculcate  the  practice  of  the  con- 
tiary  virtues,  and  the  cultivation  of  counteracting  dispositions. 

This  view  of  the  spirituality  and  comprehensiveness  of  the 
decalogue  is  confirmed  by  the  nature  and  form  of  its  closing 
precept.  All  the  great  interests  of  piety  being  provided  for 
in  the  first  four  commandments,  all  the  domestic  duties  being 
secured  in  the  fifth,  and  all  the  essential  enjoyments  of  life 
being  guarded  from  voluntary  injury  in  the  four  succeeding 
ones,  the  tenth  goes  to  the  very  source  of  human  actions — the 
heart — and  positively  forbids  all  those  desires,  those  inward 
motions  of  the  soul,  which  are  the  spring  of  every  violation 
of  the  rights  of  our  fellow-creatures. 

Where,  in  all  the  writings  of  antiquity,  whether  in  the 
codes  of  its  legislators  or  the  ethics  of  its  philosophers, 
can  a  system  of  human  duty  be  found,  comparable  to  this  ? 
In  different  countries, — and  those,  too,  esteemed  civilized 
an'^i  refined — Babylon,  Persia,  Egypt,  Phoenicia,  Carthage, 
Greece,  and  Pome, — theft,*  piracy,f  adultery, :{:  crimes 
against  nature,§  exposure  of  infants,!  and  human  sacrifice,^ 
either  separate  or  combined,  have  been  familiarized  by  cus- 
tom, and  authorized  by  law.  Look  at  the  real  institutions  of 
Lycnrgus,  the  moS't  renowned  of  heathen  lawgivers,**  and  the 
imaginary  institutions  of  Plato,  the  most  enlightened  of  hea- 
then philosophers.ff  Impurity  the  most  brutalizing  sanc- 
tioned, and  cruelty  the  most  unnatural  enforced,  by  legal 
enactments  !  Behold  the  mild  Trajan  and  the  amiable 
Cicero,:}::{:  one  of  them  exhibiting,  and  the  other  defending, 

*  Plut.  in  Lye.  f  Thucyd.  L.  1.  c.  5.         %  ^^^^-  in  Lye. 

§  Virg.  Ec.  2.  Plut.  in  Lye.  Leland's  Adv.  of  llev.  Pt.  1.  c.  7.  Pt.  2 
e.  3. 

II  riut.  in  Lye.  Ter.  Self-Tormentor.  Plat,  de  Rep.  L.  5.  Arist.  Pol. 
L.  7.  c.  16.  Cie.  de  Leg.  L.  3.  c.  8.  From  the  authority  last  cited  it  ai>- 
pears,  that  the  practiee  was  enjoined  by  a  law  of  the  twelve  tables. 

f  Magee  on  Aton.  &  Sac.  vol.  1.  pp.  88,  seq. 

**  Plut.  in  Lye.  ff  Plat,  de  Rep.  L.  5.  JJ  De  Fin.  L.  3. 


234  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

the  mnrderoiis  combats  of  the  gladiators !  Hear  even  the 
\nrtnous  Cato, — for  so  he  was  styled  by  the  ancients, — coolly 
applauding  public  houses  of  prostitution,  *  and  heartlessly 
declaring,  that  an  old  plough  and  a  worn-out  slave  ought  to 
be  treated  in  the  same  manner  !  "  The  Greeks  (we  are  told 
by  an  inspired  writei-)  sought  after  wisdom."  f  But  did  they 
find  it?  Let  the  leading  dogmas  of  their  various  schools  of 
philosophy  answer.  The  epicureans  made  pleasure  the  chief 
good,  and  virtue  that  by  which  it  could  be  most  successfully 
attained.  The  academicians  knew  not  whether  virtue  is  pre- 
ferable to  vice,  or  vice  to  virtue  ;  nor  did  they  suppose  that, 
amid  the  endless  varieties  and  conflicts  of  human  opinion, 
anything  could  be  decided  with  absolute  certainty  ;  that  is, 
they  held  that  truth,  in  the  strict  sense,  is  unattainable.  The 
stoics  taught,  that  man  is  bound  to  act  conformably  to  his 
nature  ;  that  the  great  object  of  human  pursuit  is  conformity 
to  nature  ;  and  that  this  is  the  origin  and  foundation  of  all 
moral  obligation,  j^ 

Such  was  the  legislation,  and  such  the  philosophy,  of  pro- 
fane antiquity.  The  question  of  the  sceptical  lawyer  returns 
upon  us,  "  Where  did  Moses  get  his  law  ?" — a  law,  as  we  see, 
incomparably  superior  to  all  that  was  produced  by  the  civil 
and  philosophic  wisdom  of  the  most  enlightened  ages  and 
nations  of  the  ancient  world.  Moses  lived  at  a  very  remote 
period  in  the  history  of  mankind,  a  period  comparatively 
barbarous  and  unenlightened  ;  yet  has  he  given  to  the  world 
a  law,  in  v/hich  all  the  learning  and  sagacity  of  subsequent 
ages  have  not  been  able  to  detect  a  single  flaw.  Where  did 
he  get  this  law  ?  Could  he,  by  his  own  independent  and  un- 
aided powers,  soar  so  far  above  all  his  cotemporaries  and 
compeers,  as  to  devise  it  himself?  This  cannot,  with  any 
show  of  reason  or  probability,  be  pretended.  The  source, 
then,  whence  it  emanated,  is  open  as  the  day.     It  came  direct 

*  Hor.  Sat.  L.  1.  S.  2.  j  1  Cor.  i.  22. 

X  Spring's  Obi.  of  the  World  to  tlip  Bib.  pp.  159,  IGO. 


LAWS   OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  23$ 

from  the  infinite  intelligence,  and  is  an  undoubted  seal  of  the 
divine  mission  of  him,  through  whose  agency  it  was  enacted, 
and  by  whose  pen  it  was  published  to  the  world. 

Here  I  rest  the  argument  for  the  supernatural  illumination 
and  guidance  of  Moses  in  the  enactment  of  his  code,  so  far  as 
it  depends  upon  the  consideration  of  the  moral  principles 
embodied  therein.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  needful,  for  the 
purpose  I  have  in  view,  to  urge  it  beyond  this  point.  The 
reader  who  would  see  it  fully  elucidated,  may  consult  the 
second  lecture  of  the  second  part  of  dean  Graves's  admirable 
woi-k  on  the  Pentateuch.  There  he  will  find  the  following 
positions  firmly  established,  viz.  that  the  law  of  Moses  "  en- 
joined love  to  God  with  the  most  unceasing  solicitude,  and 
love  to  our  neighbor  as  extensively  and  forcibly  as  the  pecu- 
liar design  of  the  Jewish  economy  and  the  peculiar  charac- 
ter of  the  Jewish  people  would  permit ;  that  it  impressed  the 
deepest  conviction  of  God's  requiring,  not  mere  external 
observances,  but  heartfelt  piety,  well  regulated  desires,  and 
active  benevolence  ;  that  it  taught  sacrifice  could  not  obtain 
pardon  without  repentance,  or  repentance  without  reforma- 
tion and  restitution  ;  that  it  described  circumcision  itself, 
and  by  consequence  every  other  legal  rite,  as  designed  to 
typify  and  inculcate  internal  holiness,  which  alone  could 
render  men  acceptable  to  God  ;  and  that  it  represented  the 
love  of  God  as  designed  to  act  as  a  practical  principle  stimu- 
lating to  the  constant  and  sincere  cultivation  of  purity,  mercy, 
and  truth."  Certainly  it  is  not  a  forced  conclusion,  which 
the  learned  author  draws  from  these  premises,  that  a  moral 
system  so  perfect,  and  promulgated  at  so  early  a  period, 
strongly  bespeaks  a  divine  oi'iginal. 

I  observe  again,  that  the  divine  legation  of  Moses  reposes 
with  a  firmness  and  stability  that  nothing  can  shake,  on  the 
miracles  which  he  performed  by  the  command  of  God. 
Every  ancient  lawgiver,  of  any  eminence,  claimed  to  have 
received    his  ordinances  from  some  divinity, — a   Jupiter,   a 


236  COMMENTAEIES    ON   THE 

Minerva,  an  Apol'-O,  a  Mercury,  a  Yesta,  or  an  Egeria. 
Moses,  also,  with  a  greater  distinctness  and  emphasis  than 
any  of  them,  asserted  his  inspiration  by  Jehovah,  tlie  true 
God,  in  the  laws  which  he  ordained  and  published  to  his 
countrymen.  And,  that  which  none  of  the  others  could  do, 
Moses  proved  the  authenticity  of  his  claim  by  a  succession 
of  the  most  stupendous  miracles ; — miracles  done  in  open 
day,  palpable  to  the  senses,  repeatedly  involving  one  nation 
in  unparalleled  perplexity  and  distress,  and  supplying  the 
necessities  of  another,  in  a  manner  quite  beyond  and  above 
all  the  ordinary  methods  and  resources  of  nature  ; — miracles, 
which  could  neither  be  forged,  counterfeited,  nor  gainsayed  ; — 
miracles,  whose  reality  is  at  this  day  attested  by  proofs  a 
thousandfold  clearer  and  stronger  than  any  that  make  us 
believe,  that  Csesar  crossed  the  Rubicon,  and  seized  upon  the 
liberties  of  his  country, — that  Hannibal  traversed  the  Alps, — 
that  Scipio  conquered  Carthage, — or,  indeed,  that  au}'  other 
unquestioned  and  unquestionable  fact  of  ancient  story  was, 
as   it  has   come  down  to  us  in  the  record  that  contains   it. 

The  human  mind,  apparently  by  an  original  law  of  its 
constitution,  demands  the  evidence  of  miracles,  that  is,  the 
doing  of  things  above  the  reach  of  nature,  in  proof  of  a 
divine  commission  to  establish  a  new  religion.  Tliese  are 
the  necessary  credentials  of  a  messenger  of  Heaven,  without 
which  his  claim  to  such  a  character  is  instinctively  rejected, 
and  with  which  it  is  as  instinctively  acknowledged  with 
reverence  and  submission.  Through  miracles,  the  authority 
of  such  a  claim  entrenches  itself  in  the  deepest  convictions  of 
men;  and  nothing  can  dislodge  it,  but  the  production  of  a 
contrary  conviction,  that  the  miracles  themselves  are  the 
effect  of  imposture  and  illusion.  Miracles  believed  consti- 
tute the  ultimate  basis  of  every  received  system  of  religion  in 
the  world ;  miracles  disproved  would  be  the  inevitable  de- 
struction of  every  such  system. 

Accordingly,  we  find  that  the  first  and  main  endeavor  of 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  237 

tlie  enemies  of  revealed  religion  has  always  been  to  discredit 
the  evidence  and  authority  of  its  miracles,  either  by  establish, 
ing  the  falsity  of  the  record,  or  by  showing  the  miracles 
tliemselves  to  have  been  mere  scientific  devices,  invented  to 
impose  on  the  credulity  of  ignorance  and  the  weakness  of 
enthusiasm.  But  every  such  attempt  has  only  recoiled  upon 
its  authors,  evincing  at  the  same  time  their  impotence, 
and  the  impregnable  strength  of  the  citadel,  which  they  had 
undertaken  to  demolish. 

The  miracles  of  Moses  differ  from  the  pretended  miracles 
uf  false  religions  in  three  particulars, — their  authenticity, 
their  nature,  and  their  end. 

They  differ  in  their  authenticity.  The  credibility  of  the 
history,  in  which  the  miracles  are  related,  was  proved  in 
the  last  chapter ;  and  this,  of  course,  involves  the  truth,  as 
well  of  the  miraculous,  as  of  the  common  events  of  the  record. 
The  inquirer  will  probably  be  satisfied  with  the  proof,  which 
has  been  exhibited  ;  the  caviller,  by  none  that  can  be  ex- 
hibited. Still,  let  the  two  following  considerations  be  added, 
as  confirmatory  of  the  reality  and  trtith  of  the  miracles  re- 
corded in  the  Pentateuch.  The  one  of  them  is  largely  and  for- 
cibly opened  by  dean  Graves  in  his  Lectures  on  the  Penta- 
teuch,* and  the  other,  with  no  less  ability,  by  the  acute  and 
philosophical  Leslie,  in  his  Short  Method  with  Deists,  f 

Superadded  to  the  important  fact,  that  the  miraculous 
events  of  the  Pentateuch  are  interwoven  in  one  detail  with 
the  common  ones,  with  the  same  marks  of  candor,  artlessness, 
and  truth,  is  the  further  and  more  important  consideration, 
that  the  common  events,  sundered  from  the  miracles,  are 
disconnected,  unnatural,  inexplicable,  improbable,  and  even 
wholly  incredible  ;  but  combined  with  them,  the  entire  series 
becomes  natural,  consistent,  and  every  way  probable.  Let 
a  single  illustration  of  this  position  suffice ;  and  for  this  pur- 
pose, take  the  exodus  itself,  with  the  circumstances  attending 

*  Part  1,  Lect.  5.  f  Passim. 


238  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

it. 

miraculous  events  by  which  they  were  accompanied, — facts 
admitted  by  all,  unbelievers  as  well  as  believers, — are  such 
as  these  following :  A  numerous  nation  is  held  in  the  most 
abject  political  slavery,  by  the  proudest  and  mightiest  mo- 
narchy of  earth.  For  entire  centuries,  they  have  worn  their 
chains,  nor  made  one  effort  to  burst  them  asunder,  and. 
assert  their  freedom.  The  vindication  of  their  liberty  by 
force  is  an  enterprise  so  utterly  hopeless,  that  no  thought  of 
it  has  ever  been  entertained.  The  Israelites  are  without 
arms,  without  spirit,  without  military  knowledge  and  dis- 
cipline, without  martial  resources  of  any  sort ;  while  their 
masters  and  oppressors  abound  in  all.  At  length,  however, 
lieaded  by  a  stranger, — for  Moses  has  been  forty  years  away 
from  Egypt, — and  he  armed  only  with  a  simple  staff,  they 
demand  leave  of  the  haughty  and  powerful  sovereign  to 
emigrate  in  a  body,  from  his  territories,  with  their  wives, 
their  little  ones,  their  flocks,  their  herds,  and  all  their  pos- 
sessions. The  loss  of  this  people  will  be  to  him  the  loss  of 
the  greatest  instrument  of  his  power,  luxury,  and  pride. 
Will  he  let  them  go?  TVill  he,  in  this  easj'  manner,  part 
with  their  invaluable  service  ?  We  shall  see.  The  request 
for  permission  to  depart  is  made  in  the  name  of  Jehovah, 
who  is  not  only  the  sovereign  of  the  universe,  but  also  the 
tutelary  God  of  the  Hebrews.  To  this  request,  with  the 
swelling  insolence  of  conscious  power,  the  monarch  replies, 
"  Who  is  Jehovah,  that  I  should  obey  his  voice  to  let  Israel 
go?  I  know  not  Jehovah,  neither  will  I  let  Israel  go."* 
Thereupon,  he  endeavors  still  further  to  break  the  spirit  of 
the  people  by  increasing  their  burdens.f  A  short  time 
elapses,  and  what  happens?  ISTo  sword  is  lifted,  no  spear  is 
poised,  no  bow  is  bent,  no  arrow  is  sped,  no  dart  is  aimed, 
no  human  force  of  any  kind  is  exerted.  Yet  the  proud 
monarch  is  humbled.  :j:     He  yields  to  the   demand,   which 

*  Ex.  V.  2.  t  Ex.  V.  5-9.  J  Ex.  xii.  31. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  239 

before  he  rejected  with  scorn.  Nay,  more  ;  he  not  only  lets 
Israel  go,  but  both  he  and  his  people,  terrified  and  panic- 
struck,  unite  in  urging  them  to  hasten  their  departure.  ^ 
And  they  go,  loaded  with  treasures  bestowed  upon  them 
by  their  mercenary  lords.  In  the  act  of  departing,  the 
Israelites  demand  (not  "  borrow")  of  the  Egj'ptians  gold  and 
silver  and  jewels  and  raiment.f  This  treasure  the  divine 
providence  awards  to  them,  in  recompence  for  the  service 
rendered  in  their  long  and  bitter  bondage.  The  Egyptians 
grant  everything  that  is  asked  ; :{:  and  the  Israelites  begin 
their  emigration,  six  hundred  thousand  men  on  foot,  besides 
\vomen  and  children,  and  a  mixed  multitude  of  Egyptians, 
as  well  as  flocks  and  herds  and  much  cattle.  § 

Can  any  thing  be  more  unnatural,  improbable,  and  incred- 
ible, on  the  supposition,  that  there  were  no  supernatural 
causes  in  operation  to  work  out  these  results?  Can  any 
thing  be  more  natural,  probable,  and  even  certain,  if  we  admit 
the  reality  of  the  miraculous  plagues  recorded  in  the  Penta- 
teuch ?  An  analysis  of  the  relation  of  almost  every  miracle 
to  the  common  events  connected  with  it,  would  afford  a  sim- 
ilar result.  Does  not  such  a  fact  furnish  strong  presumj^tive 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  miracles  ? 

The  second  additional  consideration  to  prove  the  authenti- 
city of  the  Mosaic  miracles,  referred  to  above,  is  that  which 
Dr.  Leslie  has  handled,  with  such  masterly  ability  and  such 
unanswerable  force,  in  his  Short  Method  with  the  Deists. 
This  ingenious  author  proves  the  truth  of  the  miraculous 
events  of  the  Pentateuch  by  applying  to  them  four  rules, 
which,  whenever  they  can  be  truly  applied  to  any  matters  of 
fact,  exclude  every  rational  doubt  of  their  reality.  The  first 
rule  is,  that  the  facts  be  such,  that  men's  senses  can  judge  ol 
them.  The  second  is,  that  they  be  performed  publicly,  in 
the  presence  of  witnesses.  The  third,  that  public  monuments 
be  set  up,  and  public  actions  be  appointed  te  be  performed, 

*  Ex.  xii.  33.        t  Ex.  xii.  35.         J  Ex.  xii.  36.         §  Ex.  xii.  37,  38. 


240  COJIMENTAEIES    ON   THE 

in  memory  of  them.  And  the  fourth,  that  these  monuments 
and  actions  be  established  and  instituted  at  the  time  of  the 
facts,  and  thenceforward  continued  without  interruption. 
The  first  two  rules  make  it  impossible  to  impose  a  false  fact 
upon  men  at  the  time  when  the  alleged  fact  is  said  to  hap- 
pen, because  every  body's  senses  would  contradict  it.  Thus, 
for  example,  if  I  were  to  publish  to  the  people  of  JSTew  Tork, 
that  I  yesterday  divided  the  Hudson  river  in  the  presence  of 
the  whole  city,  and  that  they  all  passed  over  dry-shod,  I 
could  not  get  a  single  individual  to  credit  the  statement,  for 
the  simple  reason,  that  every  man,  woman,  and  child,  would 
know  that  they  had  neither  seen  the  sti-eam  parted,  nor  had 
themselves  crossed  over  its  bed,  in  the  manner  alleged.  The 
last  two  rules  render  it  equally  impossible  to  impose  a  false 
fact  upon  the  credulity  of  any  subsequent  age,  when  the  gen- 
eration in  which  it  was  said  to  occur,  has  passed  away ; 
because,  whenever  the  alleged  fact  is  related,  since  the  state- 
ment of  the  fact  is  accompanied  with  the  declaration,  that 
public  monuments  of  it  still  remain,  and  public  actions  have 
ever  been,  and  still  are,  statedly  performed  to  commemorate 
it,  the  forger  puts  it  in  the  power  of  every  one  to  detect  and 
discredit  his  fabrication,  there  being  no  such  public  monu- 
ments existing,  and  no  such  public  actions  done,  as  he  al- 
leges. To  recur,  in  illustration,  to  the  former  example. 
Suppose  I  were  to  pretend,  that  the  miracle  of  dividing  the 
Hudson  was  performed  on  new  year's  day  by  the  first  Dutch 
governor  of  New  York,  and  were  to  add  to  the  story  the 
allegation,  that  a  vast  hall  had  been  erected,  at  the  time 
when  it  occurred,  of  stones  obtained  from  the  channel  of  the 
river ;  that  a  festival  of  a  very  peculiar  kind,  instituted  to 
commemorate  the  miracle,  had  ever  since,  even  down  to  the 
present  time,  been  celebrated  in  the  hall  the  first  day  of  every 
year ;  and  that  the  door  of  the  hall  is  never,  on  any  pre- 
text, opened  at  any  other  time,  or  for  any  other  purpose. 
Is  there  a  person  living  credulous  enough   to  believe   the 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  241 

story  ?  "Would  not  every  child  even,  on  hearing  it,  say, 
— "  I  never  saw  the  hall,  of  which  you  speak  ;  I  never  wit- 
nessed, nor  saw  the  person  that  has  witnessed,  the  festival, 
which  you  describe ;  and  I  never  heard  of  any  building  in 
New  Toi'lv,  which  is  opened  but  once  a  year." 

IS'ow,  how  do  these  four  marks  of  authenticity  apply  to  the 
miraculous  events  of  the  Pentateuch?  In  the  most  exact  and 
wonderful  manner.  Consider!  Could  any  thing  be  more 
public,  or  more  within  the  cognizance  of  men's  senses,  than 
the  miracles  ascribed  to  Moses? — as  the  plagues  of  Egypt, 
the  passage  of  the  Eed  Sea,  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  the 
giving  of  the  law,  the  healing  of  the  waters  of  Marah,  the 
manna,  the  qnails,  the  preservation  of  their  garments,  the 
cures  effected  by  the  brazen  serpent,  the  destruction  of 
Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abirara,  the  bringing  the  water  out  of 
the  flinty  rock,  &c.  &c.  If  these  things  had  not  happened, 
as  they  are  recorded,  could  Moses  have  obtained  credit  for 
them  among  the  men  of  that  generation  ?  Not  a  whit  more 
than  I  could  obtain  credit  from  the  people  of  New  Yoi'k  in 
asserting,  that  I  had  parted  the  waters  of  the  Hudson  in  their 
presence,  and  led  them  all  dry-shod  over  the  river  to  Jersey 
City.  Thus  the  reader  perceives  the  entire  applicability  of 
Leslie's  first  two  rules  to  the  Mosaic  miracles. 

But  are  the  other  two  rules  equally  pertinent?  "We  may 
answer,  without  the  least  hesitation,  yes ;  they  have  both  an 
equal  applicability  in  themselves,  and  an  equal  force  and  con- 
clusiveness, when  actually  applied.  There  is  scarcely  a 
miracle  in  the  record,  which  was  not  attested  by  public 
monuments  set  up,  or  public  actions  performed,  or  both 
combined,  to  commemorate  it.  For  example :  The  two 
tables  of  stone,  preserved  in  the  ark,  were  a  monument  of 
the  miraculous  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai.*  The  pot  of 
manna  kept  in  the  same,  was  a  monument  of  the  miraculous 
food  in  the  wilderness.f     Aaron's  rod  that  budded,  also  pre- 

*  Deut.  X.  5.  t  Ex.  xvi.  33. 

16 


242  COMMENTAKIES    ON    THE 

served  in  the  ark,  and  the  censers  of  Korah  and  liis  party, 
formed  into  plates  for  overlaying  the  altar,  were  monuments 
of  the  miraculous  destruction  of  the  rebels.*  The  brazen 
serpent,  kept,  till  it  was  destroyed  by  llezekiah,  as  having 
become  an  object  of  idolatrous  veneration,  was  a  monument 
of  the  miraculous  cures  wrought  upon  the  people,  when 
bitten  by  the  fiery  serpents  in  the  wilderness. f  The  heap  of 
stones  at  Gilgal,  taken  from  the  dry  bed  of  the  Jordan,  M'as 
a  monument  of  the  miraculous  passage  of  that  river  by  the 
chosen  tribes.:}:  The  reasoning  of  Leslie§  on  this  last  monu- 
ment,— and  it  is  equally  applicable  to  all  the  others, — has  an 
irresistible  force,  and  is  quite  unanswerable.  "  To  form  our 
argument,"  he  says,  "  let  us  suppose  that  there  never  was 
any  such  thing  as  that  passage  over  Jordan ;  that  these 
stones  at  Gilgal  w^ere  set  up  on  some  other  occasion,  in  some 
after  age;  and  then,  that  some  designing  men  invented  this 
book  of  Joshua,  and  said  it  had  been  written  at  that  time, 
and  gave  this  stonage  at  Gilgal  for  a  testimony  of  its  truth. 
"Would  not  every  body  say,  '  AVe  know  of  this  stonage  at 
Gilgal,  but  we  never  before  heard  of  this  reason,  nor  of  this 
book  of  Joshua.  "Where  has  it  been  all  this  time?  And 
when  and  how  came  you,  after  so  many  ages,  to  find  it? 
Besides,  this  book  tells  us,  that,  after  this  passage  over  Jor- 
dan, it  was  ordained  to  be  taught  to  our  children  from  age  to 
age,  and  therefore,  that  they  were  always  to  be  instructed  in 
the  meaning  of  this  monument.  But  we  were  never  taught 
it,  nor  did  we  ever  teach  our  children  any  such  event.' 
Thus  impossible  would  it  be  to  gain  credit  for  a  foct  thus 
circumstanced,  after  the  period  when  it  was  supposed  to  take 
place." 

But  the  proof  of  the  reality  of  the  Mosaic  miracles  is  still 
stronger ;  for  the  public  commemorative  actions  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation  were  far  more  numerous  than  the  public  monu- 

*  Num.  xvi.  39,  40,  xvii.  10.         f  Comp.  Num.  xxi.  and  2  Kings  xviii. 
X  Joish.  iv.  20-23.  |  Short  Method  with  the  Deists,  p.  14. 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  243 

ments  set  up  among  them  ;  insomuch  that,  as  dean  Graves  * 
has  truly  observed,  we  may  ahnost  be  said  to  have  two  histo- 
ries of  Moses  and  his  miracles, — one  in  the  written  record  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  the  other  in  the  institutions,  ceremonies, 
and  festivals  of  the  Hebrew  people.  The  consecration  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi  to  the  religious  service  of  the  nation  was  com- 
memorative of  the  miraculous  destruction  of  the  first-born  of 
the  Egyptians.!  The  passover  was  commemorative  of  the 
several  miraculous  events  preceding  and  accompanying  the 
exode.:{:  The  pentecost  was  commemorative  of  the  miracu- 
lous promulgation  of  the  law.§  The  feast  of  tabernacles  was 
commemorative  of  the  miraculous  supplies,  guidance,  and 
protection,  which  the  Israelites  enjoyed  throughout  all  their 
journey ings  and  encampments  in  the  wilderness.!  Nay,  the 
entire  Jewish  ritual,  with  all  its  sacrifices,  sabbaths,  new 
moons,  and  feasts  of  various  name,  was,  either  directly  or  in- 
directly, commemorative  of  the  miraculous  deliverance  out  of 
Egyptian  bondage,  and  the  various  other  miraculous  interposi- 
tions of  divine  providence  in  behalf  of  this  people,  whereby 
they  were  shielded,  sustained,  guided  in  the  right  way,  and 
finally  established  in  the  promised  land,  a  free  and  independ- 
ent nation.  In  this  manner,  the  whole  series  of  signal  mira- 
cles, from  the  first,  which  Moses  wrought  in  the  presence  of 
Pharaoh,  to  the  last,  which  brought  them  safely  over  Jordan, 
was  recalled  to  the  memory  of  the  Jews,  and  attested  as  au- 
thentic and  indubitable,  yearly,  monthly,  weekly,  daily,  al- 
most hourly,  as  long  as  a  vestige  of  their  religion  remained. 
Attested,  I  say,  as  authentic  and  indubitable  ;  for,  could  an 
impostor,  in  a  remote  age,  invent  these  miracles,  and  get  the 
whole  Jewish  race,  not  only  to  believe  the  facts  themselves, 
but  also,  which  would  be  more  diflicult,  that  both  they  and 
their  ancestors  had,  from  time  immemorial,  been  in  the  habit 
of  celebrating  various  festivals,  and  performing  various  pub- 

*  On  the  Pent.  Pt.  Lect.  6.         f  Comp.  Ex.  xiii.  and  Num.  iii.  and  viii. 
X  Ex.  xii  §  Deut.  xxvi.  5-10.  |1  Lev.  xxiii.  40-43. 


244  COMMEiSTTAEIES    ON    THE 

lie  actions,  in  momorj  of  them  ?  That  would  be  just  such 
another  impossibility  as  forme  now  to  get  the  people  of  New 
York  to  believe,  not  only  that  the  first  Dutch  governor  divided 
the  waters  of  the  Hudson  river,  and  led  their  ancestors  over 
on  dry  ground,  but  also,  that  an  immense  building,  erected, 
at  the  time  of  the  miracle,  of  stones  procured  from  the  bed  ot 
the  stream,  is  still  standing,  that  it  is  opened  only  once  a 
year,  and  that,  on  this  occasion,  they  themselves  do,  as  their 
ancestors  did  before  them,  participate  in  a  commemorative 
festival,  marked  by  peculiar  and  remarkable  ceremonies. 

Thus  are  the  miracles  of  Moses  guarded  against  the  charge 
of  falsehood  at  every  point.  They  could  not  be  imposed 
upon  the  Jews  in  the  age  of  Moses  ;  for  they  were  of  so  pub- 
lic a  nature,  and  so  completely  within  the  cognizance  of 
men's  senses,  that,  unless  they  were  real,  they  could  not  have 
gained  the  credence  of  a  single  person  ;  much  less,  of  an  en- 
tire nation.  They  could  not  be  imposed  upon  the  Jews  in 
any  subsequent  age ;  for,  in  order  to  this,  at  the  very  moment 
when  the  miracles  were  first  told  to  them,  they  must  have 
been  made  to  believe,  that  their  ancestors  for  ages  back  had 
known  them,  that  they  themselves  had  been  taught  them  in 
infancy,  and  that  they  were  surrounded  with  public  monu- 
ments, and  in  the  habit  of  performing  public  actions,  comme- 
morating them  ;  which  is  impossible. 

The  miracles  of  Moses  differ  from  the  pretended  miracles 
of  false  religions  in  their  nature,  as  well  as  in  their  authenti- 
city. Both  in  their  intrinsic  properties  and  their  external 
circumstances,  the  difference  between  false  miracles  and  true 
is  as  great  as  the  difference  between  darkness  and  light. 
Counterfeit  miracles  are  apt  to  be  trifling  in  their  character, 
as  the  cutting  of  a  stone  with  a  razor,  the  suspension  of  a 
cofiin  in  tl  e  air,  or  some  other  inanity.  Mohammed  himself 
set  up  no  claim  to  the  power  of  miracles;  and  those  which  are 
ascribed  to  him, — as  his  conversation  with  the  moon  and  his 
night  journey  from  Mecca  to  Jerusalem  and  thence  to  heaven. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  245 

— are  ridiculous  legends,  which  are  rejected  by  the  more  so- 
ber and  reflecting  of  his  own  followers.  The  marvellous  ad- 
ventures of  the  heathen  deities  are  not  only  trivial  and  ab- 
surd, but  often  degrading  and  immoral  also.  Such  are  the 
stories  of  Mercury's  stealing  sheep,  and  of  Jupiter's  trans- 
forming himself,  now  into  a  bull,  and  now  into  a  shower  of 
gold,  the  more  readily  to  compass  a  base  gratification.  But 
the  miraculous  interpositions  of  divine  power  recorded  in  the 
Pentateuch  are  uniformly  marked  with  a  grandeur  worthy 
of  the  creator  of  the  world,  before  whom  the  gods  of  the  my- 
thologists,  not  excepting  even  their  supreme  Jupiter,  dwindle 
into  vanity  and  emptiness.  Let  him  who  would  mark  the 
characteristics,  which  distinguish  true  religion  from  false,  and 
real  miracles  from  lying  wonders,  compare  the  manner  in  which 
the  ten  commandments  were  proclaimed  from  the  fiery  summit 
of  mount  Sinai,  by  the  voice  of  Jehovah,  in  the  hearing  of  more 
than  two  million  souls,  with  the  studied  secresy  and  mystery 
and  mummery,  with  which  the  oracles  of  the  pagan  gods  were 
delivered.  Here  the  divine  voice,  issuing  from  the  visible 
glory,  was  distinctly  heard  by  the  assembled  nation,  promul- 
gating the  moral  law,  with  every  circumstance,  which  could 
impress  the  deepest  awe  upon  even  the  dullest  minds.  How 
solemn,  how  awful  was  this  manifestation  of  the  Deity,  and 
how  well  suited  to  make  indelible  impressions  upon  the 
imaginations  and  souls  of  the  mortals,  to  whom  he  revealed 
himself,  in  a  law  worthy  of  the  sublimity  which  invested  its 
promulgation,  a  law  perfect  and  glorious  as  its  author.  The 
entire  annals  of  paganism  may  be  challenged  to  furnish  a 
parallel  to  this  scene. 

The  miracles  of  Moses  differ  from  the  miracles  of  priestcraft 
in  their  end,  quite  as  much  as  in  their  authenticity  and  their 
nature.  The  pretended  miracles  of  paganism  were  without 
point  or  meaning ;  but  those  of  Moses  interpreted,  at  the  same 
time  that  they  confirmed,  liis  doctrine.  Every  miracle  had  ite 
lesson.     Along  with  the  almighty  power  which  produced  it 


246  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

each  revealed  a  principle,  which  was  thenceforth  to  take  the 
place  of  the  miracle,  and  render  a  similar  interposition  of  the 
Deity  ever  afterwards  unnecessary.  In  illustration  of  this 
point,  let  us  glance  at  the  series  of  miracles,  which  preceded 
and  accomplished  the  exodus  of  Israel. 

Idolatry,  as  observed  above,  had  now  spread  its  infection 
throughout  the  entire  mass  of  mankind.  In  this  false  and  cor- 
rupt system  of  religion  Egypt  stood  preeminent.  Herein  she 
was  the  teacher  of  otiier  nations  ;  and  her  pernicious  influence 
had  extended  itself  far  beyond  her  territorial  limits.  The  whole 
virus  of  polytheism  seems  to  have  collected  itself  in  this  pol- 
ished and  cultivated  people.  It  had,  obviously,  become  essen- 
tial to  the  religious  interests  of  mankind,  that  a  striking  dis- 
l)lay  should  be  made  of  the  folly  and  futility  of  idolatry,  as 
well  as  of  the  existence  and  power  of  the  one  living  and  true 
God.  It  is  a  partial  and  imperfect  view  of  the  miracles 
wrought  in  the  field  of  Zoan,  which  those  take,  w^ho  regard 
them  as  limited  in  their  design  to  the  deliverance  of  the  chosen 
people  out  of  Egyptian  bondage.  This  they  w^ere  undoubtedly 
intended  to  effect ;  but  a  farther  and  more  important  purpose 
was,  to  confound  the  impure  idolatry  of  Egypt,  and  to  make 
such  a  revelation  of  the  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable 
Jehovah  to  the  Israelites,  as  would  be  sufficient  to  call  forth 
and  confirm  their  faith  in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness, 
justice,  goodness,  and  truth.  That  the  plagues  of  Egypt  had 
this  breadth  of  design,  that  in  them  God  was  engaged  in  op- 
posing and  defeating  the  pov;er  of  the  Egyptian  idols,  is  dis- 
tinctly announced  by  himself  in  the  declaration,*  "  Against 
all  the  gods  of  Egypt  I  will  execute  judgment."  The  same 
thing  appears  from  the  remark  of  Jethro,f  the  father-in-law 
of  Moses,  on  hearing  a  recital  of  them  :  "  Now  I  know  that 
Jehovah  is  greater  than  all  gods  ;  for  in  the  thing  wherein 
they  dealt  proudly,  he  is  above  them."  Nothing,  therefore, 
can  be  more  certain  than  that  the  controversy  was  less  with 

*  Ex.  xii.  12.  t  Ex.  sviii.  11. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBKEVVS.  2-17 

the  sovereign  tlian  with  the  idols  of  Egypt ;  and  that  the  mir- 
acles, in  breaking  his  power  and  subduing  his  will,  were  in- 
tended to  confront  and  put  to  shame  the  gods  in  whom  he 
trusted.  Unless  we  take  this  broad  view  of  the  subject,  the 
miracles,  though  they  remain  stupendous  exhibitions  of  divine 
power,  lose  their  peculiar  appropriateness  and  signilicancy. 

"With  this  principle  for  our  guide,  let  us  briefly  examine  the 
system  of  miracles,  employed  to  humble  the  pride  of  the 
Egyptian  monarch,  in  confounding  and  defeating  the  power 
of  the  Egyptian  gods,  and  so  to  effect  the  exodus  of  the  cho- 
sen people  from  the  Egyptian  dominions. 

The  first  in  the  series  was  manifestly  aimed  against  one  of 
the  prevalent  forms  of  Egyptian  superstition,  that  of  serpent 
worship.  No  fact  of  ancient  history  is  better  attested  than 
that  in  Egypt  the  serpent  was  an  emblem  of  divinity,  and  that 
its  worship  formed  a  conspicuous  part  of  her  idolatry.*  The 
second  time  that  Moses  and  Aaron  appeared  before  Pharaoh, 
he  demanded  a  miracle  f  in  proof  of  a  divine  mission.  Aaron 
cast  down  his  rod,  and  it  became  a  serpent.:}:  The  king's 
magicians  imitated  this  miracle,  "  for  they  cast  down  every 
man  his  rod,  and  they  became  serpents."§  Either  by  sleight 
of  hand  they  substituted  serpents  for  their  rods,  or  Jehovah, 
for  a  wise  purpose,  changed  them  into  serpents.  So  far  the 
contest  between  the  true  God  and  the  false  gods  seemed 
equal ;  or,  if  there  was  any  advantage,  it  appeared  rather  on 
the  side  of  the  idols.  But  what  followed  ?  "  Aaron's  rod 
swallowed  up  their  rods."|  This  result  clearly  proclaimed 
the  superiority  of  the  invisible  God  of  the  Hebrews  over  the 
serpent-gods  of  the  Egyptians. 

The  second  miracle, — which  was  the  first  plague, — was  di- 
rected against  the  worship  of  the  Nile,  and  intended  to  dis- 
prove the  divinity  of  that  river.  The  miracle  consisted  in 
smiting  the  waters  of  the  river,  and  turning  them  into  blood.'^^ 

•*  Deaneon  the  Serp.  in  Smith's  Heb.  Peop.  p.  38. 

t  Ex.  vii.  9.  1  Ex.  vii.  10.  g  Ex.  vii.  12. 

[JEx.  vii.  12.  i[Ex.  vii.  20. 


248  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

The  Kile,  it  is  well  known,  was  a  chief  deity  of  the  Egyp- 
tians.* Indeed,  Moses  was  commanded  t(j  meet  Pharaoh, 
"early  in  the  morning  as  he  went  forth  to  the  water,"f  that 
is,  just  as  he  was  preparing  to  bring  his  daily  offering  to  the 
false  god.  At  this  point  of  time,  when  tlie  Nile  was  receiv- 
ing, or  about  to  receive,  the  religious  homage  of  Egypt's 
haughty  sovereign,  all  its  waters  were  turned  into  blood,  and 
the  fish  that  was  in  the  river  died,  and  the  Egyptians  could 
not  drink  of  the  water.:}:  How  manifestly  did  Jehovah  here 
execute  "judgment  against  the  gods  of  Egypt  !"§  What  could 
be  better  suited  than  this  miracle  to  cover  with  confusion  the 
whole  system  of  Egyptian  idolatry  ? 

The  next  plague  was  intended  as  a  confutation  of  reptile  wor- 
ship, a  practice  in  which  Egypt  had,  at  a  very  early  period  of 
her  history,  obtained  an  infamous  notoi'iety.  This  miracle 
consisted  in  bringing  up  frogs  from  the  Kile  and  all  the 
waters  of  Egypt,  in  such  numbers,  that  the  loathsome  crea- 
tures penetrated  everywhere,  even  into  the  houses,  and  into 
the  bed-chambers,  and  into  the  beds,  and  into  the  ovens,  and 
into  all  the  receptacles  of  provisions.!  Must  not  this  have 
been  felt  as  a  signal  and  most  painful  rebuke  of  the  particu- 
lar species  of  superstition,  against  which  it  was  directed  ? 

The  third  plague  was  still  more  loathsome.  The  miracle 
consisted  in  smiting  the  dust  of  the  earth,  so  that  it  became 
lice,  covering  man  and  beast  throughout  all  the  land  of 
Egypt.T  This  miracle  was  aimed  against  the  entire  system  of 
idolatrous  worship ;  since,  as  no  priest  could  officiate  in  the 
temples  with  so  impure  an  insect  on  his  person,  not  a  single 
religious  rite  could  be  performed  during  the  continuance  of 
it.     "  To   conceive   the   severity   of  this    miracle,"  observes 

*  Herod,  c.  B.  2.  90.  Cic.  de  Nat.  Deor.  Plut.  de  Is.  et  0  ir.  p.  363. 
"  The  monuments  bear  witness  to  the  same  effect  as  the  ancient  authors." 
Heugsten.  Eg.  and  Bks.  of  Mos.  p.  113. 

t  Ex.  vii.  15.  X  Ex.  vii.  20,  21.  ^  Ex.  xii.  12. 

II  Ex.  viii.  3.  T[  Ex.  viii.  17. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBKEWS.  249 

Stackliouse,*  "  as  a  judgment  on  their  idolatry,  we  must  recol- 
lect their  utter  abhorrence  of  all  kinds  of  vermin,  and  their 
extreme  attention  to  external  purity,  above  every  other  people, 
perhaps,  that  have  ever  existed.  On  this  head  they  were  more 
particularly  solicitous,  wlien  about  to  enter  the  temples  of 
their  gods ;  for  Herodotus  informs  us,  that  the  priests  wore 
linen  garments  only,  that  they  might  be  daily  washed,  and 
every  third  day,  shaved  every  part  of  their  body,  to  prevent 
lice,  or  any  species  of  impurity,  from  adhering  to  those  who 
were  engaged  in  the  worship  of  the  gods.  *  *  *  *  Hence  we 
find,  that,  on  the  production  of  the  lice,  the  priests  and  magi 
cians  perceived  immediately  from  what  hand  the  miracle  had 
come ;  for  it  was  probably  as  much  from  this  circumstance, 
as  from  its  exceeding  their  own  art  to  imitate,  that  they  ex- 
claimed, '  This  is  the  finger  of  God.'  " 

The  fourth  plague  was  the  miracle  of  flies,  "  a  grievous 
swarm,  coming  into  the  house  of  Pharaoh,  and  into  his  ser- 
vants' houses,  and  into  all  the  land  of  Egypt,"  so  that  "  the 
land  was  corrupted  by  the  swarm  of  flies."t  It  is  probable, 
that  this  miracle  was  designed  as  a  curse  on  the  animal  wor- 
ship of  Egypt.  "  A  poisonous  fly  resting  ou  all  animals  with- 
out distinction  must  have  exhibited  the  weakness  of  these 
imaginary  gods,  and  the  folly  of  their  worship,  in  the  most 
afiecting  manner.":}:  But  further :  There  is  reason  to  think, 
that  the  instrument,  by  which  this  plague  was  inflicted,  was 
itself  regarded  with  idolatrous  veneration,  BaahZebub,  "  the 
lord  of  flies,"  was  the  tutelary  deity  of  Ekron,— a  city  of  the 
Philistines,  which  was  near  the  conflnes  of  Egypt,— and  was 
worshipped  there  as  a  fly-god,  the  defender  of  the  people 
against  this  noxious  insect.  It  is  probable,  that  a  like  super- 
stition prevailed  in  Egypt.  The  guardian  god  of  lower  Egypt 
was  adored  under  the  symbol  of  a  winged  asp.     In  this  form 

*  Hist,  of  Bib.  Vol  1,  p.  473. 

f  Ex.  viii.  24  %  Smith's  Heb.  Peep.  p.  40. 


250  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

Wilkinson  "^'  found  it  sculptured  in  one  of  the  rojal  tombs  at 
Thebes,  The  deity  showed  himself  utterly  incapable  of 
protecting  his  worshippers  against  the  power,  that  was  thus 
grievously  afflicting  them,  and  pouring  contempt  upon  the 
whole  system  of  animal  worship.  Here,  again,  we  have  Je- 
hovah "  executing  judgment  against  the  gods  of  Egypt,"-]'  and 
"  in  the  thing  wherein  they  dealt  proudly"  showing  himself 
"  above  them.:};" 

The  fifth  plague,  like  the  preceding  one,  was  designed  to 
show  the  folly  and  falsity  of  the  brute  worship  of  Egypt.  The 
miracle  consisted  in  bringing  "  a  grievous  murrain,"  a  con- 
tagious, inflammatory,  and  very  fatal  disease,  "  upon  the 
horses,  upon  the  asses,  upon  the  camels,  upon  the  oxen,  and 
upon  the  sheep."§  The  severity  of  this  miracle,  as  a  vindictive 
stroke,  aimed  against  the  abomination  of  animal  worship, 
may  be  estimated  from  the  fact,  that  the  death  of  a  single  one 
of  the  sacred  animals  was  looked  upon  by  the  Egyptians  as 
a  great  public  calamity.  How  terrible,  then,  must  have  been 
their  consternation  at  seeing  them  perish  by  thousands ! 
What  severer  judgment  could  the  God  of  the  Hebrews  have 
executed  against  the  gods  of  the  Egyptians  ?  How  humbling 
were  such  visitations  to  the  pride  of  a  nation,  claiming  pre- 
eminence over  all  others  in  power  and  wnsdom !  How  strong 
their  tendency  to  wean  the  people  from  their  absurd  and 
impure  theology ! 

The  next  miracle, — the  plague  of  boils,| — deserves  to  arrest 
our  most  serious  attention.  "Hitherto  the  judgments  of  God 
had  been  chiefly  directed  against  the  objects  of  idolatrous 
worship ;  this  affected  the  most  cultivated  and  powerful  sup- 
porters of  this  idolatry."^  The  reader  is  requested  to  notice 
particularly  the  means,  which  the  Lord  directed  Moses  to 
employ  to  produce  this  plague, — "handfuls  of  ashes  of  the 

*  Anc.  Eg.  Vol.  5,  pp.  45,  84.  f  Ex.  xii.  12. 

X  Ex.  xviii.  11.  §  Ex.  ix.  3. 

II  Ex.  ix.  8-12.  IT  Smith's  Heb.  Peop.  p.  41. 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  251 

furnace,  spriukled  toward  the  heaven  in  the  sight  of  Pharaoh."* 
The  furnace.     What  furnace  ?    The  answer  to  this  question  is 
important ;  for  on  it  the  force  and  significancj  of  the  miracle 
mainly  depend.     The  Egyptians,  like  the  orientals,  believed 
in  the  existence  of  an  evil  principle,  which  they  adored  under 
the  name  of  Typho.     This  malign  deity  was  worshipped  with 
human  sacrifices.     The  fact  is  mentioned  by  several  ancient 
authors;  but  Plutarch, f  from  Manetho,  describes  the  manner 
of  the  worship.     "  Formerly  in  the  city  of  Idithya,"  he  says, 
"  they  were  wont  to  burn  even  men  alive,  giving  them  the 
name  of  Typhos,  and,  winnowing  their  ashes  through  a  sieve, 
to  scatter  and  disperse  them  in  the  air."     This  was  done  to 
propitiate  the  cruel  deity,  and  that  evil  might  be  averted  from 
every  place,  whereon  there  fell  a  single  particle  of  the   ashes 
of  the  human  victims  consumed  upon  his  altars.     These  altars, 
there  is  every  reason  to  suppose,  were  "  the  furnace"  of  the 
sacred  text,  and  these  ashes  were  the  ashes  which  Moses  was 
directed  to  sprinkle  by  handfuls  towards  heaven,  in  the  sight 
of  Pharaoh ;  for  what  occasion  would  be  more  likely  to  call 
into  requisition  the  horrid  rites  above  described,  than  the 
iippalling  visitations,  under  M^hich  Egypt  had  been  now  for 
some  time  suffering?     The  ashes,  from  which  the  Egyptian 
court  and  hierarchy  were  hoping  for  relief  and  victory,  cast  by 
Moses  into  the  air,  instead  of  preventing  evil,  became  a  new 
source  of  it,  for  it  turned  to  boils  and  blains  on  the  persons 
of  king,  priest,  magician,  and  people.     Thus  the  rites  of  this 
Egyptian  Moloch  j)roved  a  curse  rather  than  a  blessing  to  his 
worshippers,  and  the  power  and  supremacy  of  Jehovah  were 
incontestably  established.  The  triumph  was  complete ;  and  the 
Egyptians  could  not  but  see  and  own,  that  there  was  neither 
might,  nor  wisdom,  nor  understanding,  nor  counsel  against 
the  Lord.:}:     Does  not  this  miracle,  thus  explained,  make  God's 
controversy  with  the  idolatry  of  Egypt  clear  as  a  sunbeam? 

*  Ex.  ix.  8. 

t  De  Is.  et  Osir.  in  Smith's  Heb.  Peop.  p.  42.        J  Prov.  xxi.  30. 


252  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

And  does  it  not  giv^e  a  meaning,  consistency,  and  force  to  the 
transaction,  which  would  otherwise  be  wanting  to  it? 

The  seventh  plague  was  a  severe  tempest,  attended  with 
lightning,  thunder,  hail,  and  rain.*  This  miracle  carried 
the  war  upon  the  Egyptian  superstition  into  a  new  depart- 
ment of  it, — the  vegetable  kingdom.  The  wisdom  of  Egypt 
deified,  not  only  beasts,  reptiles,  and  insects,  but  trees  and 
plants  also.  Among  the  vegetable  gods  of  her  impure  and 
grovelling  theology  were,  of  trees,  the  peach,  the  pome- 
granate, the  vine,  the  acanthus,  the  fig,  and  the  tamarisk ; 
and  of  plants,  the  onion,  the  garlic,  the  papyrus,  and  the  ivy. 
If  these  were  not  all  actually  worshipped  as  deities,  some  of 
them  were,  and  the  others  received  a  superstitious  veneration, 
as  sacred  and  divine.  Here,  then,  in  the  wide-spread  destruc- 
tion, occasioned  by  this  miraculous  storm  to  the  vegetable 
growth  of  Egypt,  for  "  the  hail  smote  every  herb  of  the  field, 
and  brake  every  tree  of  the  field, "f  we  liave  a  fresh  confuta- 
tion of  the  Egyptian  idolatry. 

In  the  address  which  Jehovah,  when  about  to  inflict  this 
plague  upon  Egypt,  directed  Moses  to  make  to  Pharaoh,  there 
occurs  an  expression,  which  confirms  the  view  here  taken  of 
the  significance  and  intent  of  this  whole  succession  of  mira- 
cles :  "  That  thou  niayest  know  that  there  is  none  like  me  in 
all  the  earth.":}:  Here  there  is  a  direct  comparison  between 
Jehovah  and  some  other  beings.  To  suppose  between  him 
and  men  would  be  jejune  and  frigid.  It  must  certainly  be 
between  Jehovah  and  other  gods.  But  if  so,  then  the  entire 
series  of  plagues  was,  as  here  contended,  a  controversy 
between  true  religion  and  false,  a  war  carried  on  by  the  living 
God  against  the  senseless  and  impure  system  of  idolatry, 
weak  in  every  thing,  except  its  power  to  corrupt  and  destroy 
the  souls  of  men.  The  account  of  this  miracle  contains  also 
an  intimation  of  the  effect,  which  the  issue  of  the  controversy 
thus  far  had  had  on  the  Egyptians.     Some  are  described  as 

*  Ex.  ix.  23,  24.  f  Ex.  ix.  25.  J  Ex.  ix.  14. 


LA.WS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  253 

"fearing  the  word  of  Jehovah,"  and,  as  a  consequence, 
"  making  their  servants  and  cattle  flee  into  the  houses  ;"* 
others  as  regarding  not  the  word  of  Jehovah,"  and  so  "  leav- 
ing their  servants  and  cattle  in  the  field."f  From  this  state- 
ment, it  is  plain  that  there  were  some,  we  may  reasonably 
suppose  there  were  many,  of  the  wealthy  Egyptians,  whose 
confidence  in  their  idols  had  been  thoroughly  shaken,  and  who 
now  believed  that  Jeliovah,  the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  was  the 
living  and  the  true  God. 

The  eighth  plague  had  a  similar  object  with  the  seventh,  and 
was,  as  it  were,  the  consummation  of  it.  The  miracle  con- 
sisted in  an  unprecedented  incursion  of  locusts,  brought  by  a 
strong  east  wind.ij:  "  Yery  grievous  were  they.  *  *  * 
They  covered  the  face  of  the  whole  earth,  so  that  the  land  was 
darkened ;  and  they  did  eat  every  herb  of  the  land,  and  all 
the  fruit  of  the  trees  which  the  hail  had  left ;  and  there 
remained  not  any  green  thing  in  the  trees,  or  in  the  herbs  of 
the  field,  tln-ough  all  the  land  of  Egypt."§  Thus  was  com- 
pleted the  triumph  of  the  God  of  Israel  over  the  vegetable 
gods  of  Egypt.  Some  writers  have  supposed,  that  this  mira- 
cle was  directed  especially  against  the  worship  of  Serapis, 
whose  function  it  was  to  protect  the  country  against  locusts.  | 
If  such  was  the  office  of  this  god,  his  impotence  stood  con- 
spicuously revealed.  At  any  rate,  through  the  present  and 
preceding  penal  visitations,  Egypt  saw  all  she  held  most  dear 
and  sacred  on  earth,  crushed,  broken,  obliterated,  and  de- 
stroyed, by  a  power,  which  seemed  armed  against  the  entire 
range  of  her  idolatrous  worship.  How  galling  to  a  nation  so 
proud  of  her  wisdom,  her  power,  and  her  gods ! 

But  a  still  more  humiliating  blow  was  yet  to  fall  upon  the 
pride  of  Egypt ;  a  still  more  signal  proof  was  to  be  given  of 
the  impotence  and  nothingness  of  her  idols.     One  class  of 

*  Ex.  is.  20.  f  Ex.  ix.  21. 

I  Ex.  x.  13.  §  Ex.  X.  14.  15. 

II  Smith's  Heb.  Peop.  p.  43. 


254  COMMENTAEIES   ON   THE 

her  deities  alone  remained  yet  unabashed  and  untouched  by 
the  power  of  Jehovah, — the  heavenly  luminaries.  It  i& 
against  the  divinity  of  these  orbs,  particularly  of  the  most 
resphiudently  glorious  of  them,  that  the  ninth  plague  was 
directed.*  "  The  sun  was  worshipped  throughout  Egypt. 
The  sacred  emblems  of  his  influence  and  supremacy  were 
constantly  in  use.  *  *  *  *  Ttie  moon  was  also  w^orshipped 
under  the  name  of  Thoth.  •»  *  *  These  sublime  objects  of 
their  idolatrous  worship  seemed  to  be  too  distant  from  our 
earth,  too  great  and  too  glorious,  to  be  aftected  by  any 
power  which  Moses  could  wield.  *  *  *  *  g^t  Jehovah 
had  arisen  out  of  his  place  to  vindicate  his  insulted  majesty. 
*  *  *  *  jjj  ^liQ  accomplishment  of  this  purpose,  no  object 
was  so  high,  no  creature  so  great,  as  to  withstand  his  will. 
Moses  was  commanded  to  stretch  out  'his  hand  toward 
heaven,  and  there  was  a  thick  darkness  in  all  the  land  of 
Egypt  three  days.'  So  deep  was  the  darkness  that  during 
the  whole  of  this  time,  '  they  saw  not  one  another,'  So  over- 
whelming were  the  amazement  and  sorrow,  that  during  this 
period  no  man 'rose  from  his  place.'  Uncertain  whether 
they  should  ever  again  see  the  light,  they  lay  paralyzed  in  a 
darkness  that  could  be  felt.  Here  the  triumph  of  the  God  of 
Israel  was  complete,  and  the  perfect  vanity  of  Egyptian 
idolatiy  demonstrated.  Egypt,  with  all  her  learning  and 
prowess,  supported  by  a  gorgeous  and  almost  boundless 
range  of  idolatrous  religion,  is  exhibited  as  convicted,  pun- 
ished, and  without  any  power  to  escape,  or  any  hope  of 
alleviation."! 

Having  thus  "executed  judgment  against  all  the  gods  of 
Egypt,":}:  and  shown  himself  "  greater  than  all  gods,"  being 
"above  them  in  the  thing  wherein  they  dealt  proudly,"§ 
Jehovah  by  the  tenth  and  last  in  this  terrible  series  of  penal 
inflictions,  intended  to  teach  the  Egyptians,  by  causing  the 

*  Ex.  X.  21-23.  t  Smith's  Heb.  Pcop.  p.  43-44. 

t  Ex.  xii.  12.  2  Ex.  xviii.  11. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  255 

iron  to  enter  into  their  own  souls,  that  to  him  alone  it  be- 
longed to  execute  judgment  in  the  earth.  On  that  direful 
night,  when  the  first-born  of  every  family  in  Egypt,  "  from 
the  first-born  of  Pharaoh  that  was  on  his  throne  unto  the  first- 
born of  the  captive  that  was  in  the  dungeon,"*  became  a 
corpse,  all  the  innocent  Hebrew  blood  that  had  gorged  the 
monsters  of  the  Nile,  was  required,  to  the  last  drop,  of 
Pharaoh  and  his  people. 

From  all  this  the  conclusion  is,  that  the  miracles  of  Moses 
were  undoubtedly  real,  and  that,  as  a  consequence,  his  mis- 
sion was  certainly  divine.  For  who  but  a  man  commissioned 
as  God's  vicegerent,  could  wield  a  power  like  that  displayed 
in  the  plagues  of  Egypt,  and  the  subsequent  wonders  of  the 
Ked  Sea  and  the  wilderness  ?  AVho  but  a  true  divine  mes- 
senger could  control  the  laws  and  elements  of  nature  ? 

How  stands  the  question,  then,  of  the  divine  legation  of 
Moses  ?  Let  me  sum  uj)  the  argument  in  one  brief  sentence. 
The  general  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  publication  of 
a  theology  worthy  of  the  true  God,  the  overthrow  of  idolatry, 
and  the  substitution  of  a  better  faith  and  worsliip  in  its  place, 
the  superhuman  purity  and  excellence  of  his  moral  code,  and 
the  clear  and  well  established  power  of  miracles, — such  is 
the  array  of  proofs,  which  concentrate  their  force,  in  a  blaze 
of  demonstration,  around  the  warrant  of  Moses  to  publish 
laws  in  the  name  of  Jehovah. 

*  Ex.  xii.  29. 


256  COaOIENTAEIES   ON   THE 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Objections  considered  and  answered. 

Notwithstanding  these  clear  and  irrefragable  proofs  of  a 
divine  legation,  the  inspiration  of  Moses  has  been  both  de- 
nied and  ridiculed  bj  men,  who  claim  the  character  and 
authority  of  philosophers  and  historians,  and  who  arrogantly 
assume,  as  their  exclusive  right,  the  title  of  free  thinkers ;  as 
if  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  besides  themselves,  were  fast 
bound  in  the  chains  of  prejudice  and  priestcraft.  These 
writers  ground  their  denial  of  inspiration  to  Moses  on  certain 
internal  evidences  of  imposture,  contained  in  his  laws  them- 
selves. They  allege,  that  many  of  his  statutes  are  trivial, 
absurd,  and  unworthy  the  wisdom  and  majesty  of  Deity ; 
that  the  spirit  of  his  legislation  is  sanguinary  and  cruel ;  that 
his  code  permits  many  things,  now  commonly  regarded  as 
social  evils ;  that  it  recognizes  what  they  are  j)leased  to  stig- 
matise as  the  monstrous  principle  of  retaliation ;  that  it 
omits  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punishments ;  and 
that  his  laws  respecting  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites 
violate  the  plainest  dictates  of  religion,  and  the  most  sacred 
rules  of  justice. 

Most  if  not  all  of  these  objections  will  be  sufficiently  re- 
futed in  that  general  exposition  of  the  Mosaic  code,  which  it 
is  the  object  of  these  pages  to  offer ;  yet  it  may  be  well,  in 
advance  of  such  a  confutation,  which  must  of  necessity 
spread  itself  over  the  entire  treatise,  and  at  the  hazard  of 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  257 

some  repetition,  to  present  in  this  place,  a  brief  specific  an- 
swer to  the  allegations  above  recited.  This,  therefore,  is 
what  I  now  propose  to  do.  We  will  consider  them  in  the 
order  in  which  they  are  mentioned  in  tlie  preceding-  j^ara- 
graph. 

The  first  objection  is  based  upon  the  alleged  trifling  nature 
of  many  of  the  Mosaic  laws.  Such  are  the  laws  against  cut- 
ting the  hair  and  beard  after  a  particular  manner  ;*  against 
boiling  a  kid  in  the  dam's  milk -jf  against  wearing  garments 
made  of  linen  and  woollen  mixed  together ;:{:  against  the 
interchange  of  male  and  female  attire  ;§  against  cutting  the 
flesh  ;1|  against  receiving  the  price  of  a  dog  and  the  hire  of 
a  prostitute  into  the  public  treasury  ;^  against  the  sowing  of 
mixed  seeds  ;**  against  worshipping  in  groves  and  high 
places  ;f  f  and  against  the   use  of  certain  kinds  of  animal 

All  these  laws,  with  others  of  an  apparently  like  trivial 
nature,  were  aimed  against  the  idolatrous  customs,  then 
prevalent  in  the  world.  Unless,  therefore,  idolatry  itself, 
with  all  its  horrid  train  of  crimes  and  impurities,  was  a  trifle 
unbecoming  the  care  of  God,  the  agencies  adapted  to  its 
extirpation  could  not  but  be  worthy  of  his  contrivance  and 
institution.  Let  us  glance  at  a  few  of  the  practices,  against 
which  the  laws  in  question  were  directed. 

A  particular  mode  of  shaving  the  head  and  face  were  re- 
garded by  certain  sects  of  idolatrous  priests  as  essential  tc 
the  acceptable  worship  of  their  gods.§§  By  others  it  was  sup- 
posed that  the  pursuits  of  husbandry  would  be  rendered  more 
successful  by  sprinkling  the  fields  and  gardens  with  the  milk 

*  Lev.  xix.  27.  f  Ex.  xxiii.  19,  34.     Deut.  xiv  21. 

X  Levit.  xix.  19.  §  Deut.  xxii.  5.  ||  Levit  xix.  28, 

1[  Deut.  xxii.  5.  **  Levit.  xix.  19. 

ft  Ex.  xxxiv.  13.     Deut.vii.  5.     JJ  Levit.  xi. 

§§  Herod.  L.  3,  c  8 ;  also  L.  4.  c.  175.     Maimon.  More  Nev.  Pt  3  j   .f? 
See  also  Dr.  Clarke's  very  instructive  note  on  Lev.  xix.  27. 

17 


258  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

of  a  goat,  in  wliich  a  young  kid  bad  been  previously  boiled.* 
Mairaonides,-!-  who,  with  an  untiring  industry,  searched  into 
every  nook  and  corner  of  ancient  history,  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  to  light  all  the  institutions  and  usages  of  idolatry,  in- 
forms us,  that  the  gentile  priests  used  to  wear  garments  made 
of  a  mixture  of  the  produce  of  plants  and  animals,  hoping 
thereby  to  have  the  beneficial  influence  of  some  lucky  conjunc- 
tion of  the  jjlanets,  and  to  derive  thence  a  blessing  upon  their 
sheep  and  flax.  From  the  same  writer:|:  we  learn  that  another 
common  custom  of  idolatry  was  for  men,  in  the  worship  of 
several  of  their  gods,  to  put  on  the  garments  worn  by  women, 
and  women  those  used  by  men.  He  found  an  express  pre- 
cept in  an  old  magical  book,  enjoining  that  men  should  stand 
before  the  star  of  Yenus  in  the  ornamented  garments  of 
women,  and  women  in  the  armor  of  men  before  the  star  of 
Mars.  The  savage  rite  of  cutting  the  flesh  was  generally 
practised  by  the  ancient  heathen  nations,  to  pacify  the  infer- 
nal deities,  and  render  them  propitious  to  departed  souls.§ 
Anubis,  one  of  the  principal  Egyptian  divinities,  had  the 
head  of  a  dog,||  and  was  worshipped  under  the  symbol  of  that 
animal.  Nothing  was  more  common  than  to  consecrate  the 
wages  of  prostitution  to  the  gods ;  and,  indeed,  this  vile  com- 
merce was  carried  on  within  the  very  precincts  of  the  temples, 
and  under  the  sanction  of  the  impure  divinities,  whose  priests 
fattened  on  its  unholy  gains.^f     To  worship  in  groves  and 

*  See  Cudw.  on  the  Lord's  Sup.  and  Spencer  de  Leg.  Heb.  cited  in  Dr. 
Clarke's  note  on  Ex.  xxiii.  19. 

f  Pe  IdoL     Also  on  Lev.  xix.  19.  J  On  Deut.  xxii.  5. 

^  See  Magee  on  Aton.  and  Sac.  voL  1,  p.  101. 

II  Anth.  Class.  Die.  Art.  Anubis.  This  opinion,  indeed,  has  been  shaken 
by  Wilkinson,  (Anc.  Eg.  vol.  5,  p.  260,)  who  has  rendered  it  probable, 
that  Anubis  had  not  the  head  of  a  dog,  but  of  a  jackal.  Still  it  remains 
certain,  that  the  dog  was  a  sacred  animal  with  the  Egyptians,  and,  as  such, 
received  a  superstitious  veneration.     See  Smith's  Heb.  Peop.  pp.  39,  40. 

^  See  Prof.  Push  and  Dr.  Clarke  on  Levit.  xix.  29;  also  Augustin  de 
Civit.  Dei,  L.  18,  c.  5. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  259 

tigh  places  was  supposed  to  be  peculiarly  acceptable  to  the 
false  deities  of  paganism,  and  was  certainly  favorable  to  the 
impurities,  which  were  but  too  often  found  associated  with 
their  worship.  Particular  citations  here  are  unnecessary,  as 
all  heathen  antiquity  is  full  of  allusions  to  this  practice. 
Finally  the  old  Zabii  not  only  sowed  mixed  seeds  and 
grafted  different  kinds  of  trees  upon  one  another  as  a  i-eli- 
gious  rite,  but  used  abominable  filthiness  at  the  time  of 
doing  it. 

Such  were  some  of  the  cruel,  absurd,  and  impure  customs  of 
idolatry,  against  which  the  laws  in  question  were  directed, 
and  which,  it  cannot  be  denied,  they  were  well  adapted  to 
destroy.  Doubtless,  there  were  some  things  condemned  in 
these  laws,  which  are  in  themselves  innocent  and  harmless, 
and  which,  if  practised  now,  would  not  incur  the  divine  dis- 
pleasure, as  worshipping  God  in  groves,  sowing  mixed  seeds, 
wearing  clothes  of  wool  and  flax  mingled  together,  &c.  But 
in  that  age  these  things  were  so  closely  connected  with  others 
which  were  evil,  that,  with  a  people  of  gross  intellect,  and 
but  little  addicted  to  refined  distinctions,  the  two  could  not 
be  disjoined,  and  the  permission  of  the  one  would  be  likely 
to  draw  after  it  the  practice  of  the  other. 

A  parallel  to  this  procedure  of  Moses,  we  find  in  the  con- 
duct of  the  early  protestant  reformers.  They  waged  war 
npon  a  variety  of  usages,  harmless  enough  in  themselves,  but 
hurtful  through  their  connexion  wdth  the  papal  system. 
These  usages  were  among  "  the  monuments  of  idolatry," 
which  must  be  overthrown  at  all  hazards.  Something  analo- 
gous we  have  in  our  political  history.  The  tax  on  tea  was  a 
paltry  thing  in  itself.  Why  was  it  refused,  and  the  horrors  of 
civil  war  encountered,  rather  than  pay  it  ?  Not,  surely,  on 
its  own  account,  but  because  of  its  relation  to  a  system.  This 
was  precisel}'  the  principle  of  these  Mosaic  laws.  In  con- 
demning them,  therefore,  we  condemn  the  principle  of  the 


2G0  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

war  of  independence,  and  call  in  question  its  "wisdom  and 
necessity. 

There  is  another  class  of  the  Mosaic  laws, — the  rites  of 
purification, — whose  divine  original  has  been  denied,  on  this 
same  ground  of  triviality.  But  the  extended  system  of  ritual 
purification,  established  by  these  laws,  embraced,  among 
other  purposes,  one  as  noble  and  sublime,  as  any  other  in  all 
the  wide  range  of  the  Mosaic  legislation.  It  was  to  convey 
into  the  minds  of  the  Israelites  the  idea  of  the  divine 
holiness;  an  idea,  which,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  could  be  infused 
in  no  other  way.  This  has  been  clearly  shown  by  the  inge- 
nious author  of  the  Philosophy  of  the  Plan  of  Salvation,  to 
whose  chapter  on  the  development  of  the  idea  of  holiness, 
the  reader  is  referred.  He  will  there  see  the  argument  han- 
dled at  length,  and  with  masterly  ability.  It  must  be  presented 
liere  in  a  condensed  form,  and  so  shorn  of  a  portion  of  its 
strength. 

All  the  nations,  by  whom  the  Israelites  were  surrounded, 
worshipped  unholy  beings.  How,  then,  were  the  chosen 
people  to  be  made  to  understand  and  feel  the  holy  character 
of  God  ?  Whatever  may  be  the  speculations  of  philosophers 
about  innate  ideas,  it  is  yet  true,  that  all  acquired  knowledge 
comes  to  us  through  the  medium  of  the  senses.  By  them  the 
knowledge  of  external  objects  is  conveyed  to  the  mind ;  and 
these  simple  ideas  serve  as  material  for  reflection,  comparison, 
and  abstraction.  Thus  the  idea  of  power,  among  the  Hebrews, 
was  derived,  through  the  eye,  from  the  horn  of  an  animal  and 
the  hand  of  a  man ;  because,  through  these  parts,  their 
respective  strength  was  mainly  exerted.  And  hence  the 
words  horn  and  hand  came  to  be  used  as  abstract  terms, 
denoting  the  general  quality  of  power.  Thus  "  a  horn  of 
salvation"  means  a  mighty  salvation;  and  "the  power  of  the 
tongue"  in  Hebrew  is  "  the  hand  of  the  tongue."  So  the 
same  word,  in  that  language,  by  a  similar  transfer  of  the 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  261 

material  to  the  immaterial,  means  both  sunshine  and  hap- 
piness. 

These  few  instances  will  show  how  the  abstract  ideas  of  the 
Hebrews  were  originated ;  viz.  through  the  impressions  made 
bj  external  objects  on  the  senses. 

Mark  now  both  the  fact  and  the  principle.  The  fact  is,  that 
the  whole  world  of  matter  did  not  afford  a  single  object,  capa- 
ble of  conveying  to  the  mind  the  idea  of  God's  holiness.  Tbe 
principle  is,  that  the  idea,  having  been  first  originated,  must 
then  be  thrown  into  the  mind  through  the  instrumentality  of 
the  senses,  by  a  process  instituted  for  that  purpose.  Mark, 
also,  the  correspondence  between  this  principle,  founded,  as 
it  is,  npon  the  laws  of  mind,  and  the  system  devised  to 
instruct  the  Israelites  in  the  knowledge  of  God's  moral  purity. 

Throughout  the  entire  Levitical  economy,  purity  is  the  pre- 
dominating idea.  This  idea  pervades  all  its  ceremonies  and 
observances.  The  priests  were  to  be  purified,  the  sacrifices 
were  to  be  purified,  the  people  were  to  be  purified,  the  camp 
was  to  be  purified,  every  thing  was  to  be  purified  and  re-pu- 
rified ;  "  and  each  process  of  the  ordinances  was  designed  to 
reflect  purity  upon  the  others;  until,  finally,  that  idea  of 
jjurity,  formed  in  the  mind,  and  rendered  intense  by  the  con- 
vergence of  so  many  rays,  was  transferred  to  God, — in  whom, 
as  a  moral  being,  it  would  become  moral  purity,  or  holiness. 
Thus  they  learned,  in  the  sentiment  of  Scripture,  that  God 
was  of  too  PURE  eyes  to  look  upon  iniquity.  That  the  idea 
of  moral  purity  in  the  minds  of  the  Israelites  was  thus  origi- 
nated by  the  machinery  of  the  Levitical  dispensation,  is  sup- 
ported not  only  by  the  philosophy  of  the  thing,  but  by  many 
allusions  in  the  Scriptures.  Such  allusions  are  frequent  in  the 
writers  of  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the  IN'ew;  evidencing 
that,  in  their  minds,  the  idea  of  moral  purity  was  still  sym- 
bolized by  physical  purity.  The  rite  of  baptism  is  founded 
upon  this  symbolical  analogy.  In  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
St.  Paul  says:  'It  was  therefore  necessary  that  the  patterns 


262  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

of  things  iu  the  heavens  should  be  purified  with  these ,'  i.  o. 
with  these  purifying  processes  addressed  to  the  senses.  The 
plain  instruction  of  which  is,  that  the  parts  and  processes  of 
the  Levitical  economy  were  patterns  addressed  to  the  senses 
of  unseen  things  in  heaven,  and  that  the  purifying  of  those 
patterns  indicated  the  spiritual  purity  of  the  spiritual  things 
which  they  represented." 

Undoubtedly  the  Levitical  rites  of  purification  had  other 
purposes  to  answer,  which  this  is  not  the  place  to  unfold.  But 
if  the  end  here  indicated  M^ere  the  only  one,  I  put  it  to  the 
candor  of  thinking  men,  whether  a  system  of  laws  and  obser- 
vances, designed  and  adapted  to  originate  the  idea  of  moral 
purity,  or  holiness,  and  to  transfer  it  to  the  object  of  religious 
worship,  is  justly  open  to  the  charge  of  frivolity.  Ought  it 
not  rather  to  be  numbered  among  the  proofs  of  the  divine  ori- 
gin of  the  Mosaic  institutions  ?  To  my  mind  it  furnishes  pre- 
sumptive evidence  to  that  effect  of  no  inconsiderable  force. 

The  second  objection  to  the  divine  legation  of  Moses  is 
grounded  on  the  inhumanity  of  the  Mosaic  code.  The  crim- 
inal jurisprudence  of  the  lawgiver  is  here  made  the  point  of 
a  fierce  assault.  The  particular  charge  against  this  part  of 
his  polity  is,  that  it  is  vindictive  and  cruel.  How  is  this  ? 
\^  At  the  very  threshold  of  the  penal  laws  of  Moses,  we  find 
civil  liberty  making  a  great  stride  in  its  work  of  human 
improvement.  How  much,  and  how  justly,  do  we  congratu- 
late ourselves  on  that  principle  of  our  constitutional  law,  that 
no  criminal  attainder  shall  work  corruption  of  blood!  Yet 
this  principle  was  embodied  in  the  constitution  of  Moses,  not- 
withstanding the  opposite  doctrine  prevailed  in  the  govern- 
ments of  the  most  polished  nations  of  antiquity.  His  statute 
is  expressed  with  characteristic  clearness  and  brevity :  '  The 
fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children,  neither  shall 
the  children  be  put  to  death  for  the  fathers  ;  every  man  shall 
be  put  to  death  for  his  own  sins."*     This  principle  Moses  in- 

*  Deut.  sxiv.  16. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  263 

corporated  into  his  code,  in  tlie  face  of  prejudice?,  common 
opinion,  immemorial  usage,  and  the  sentiment  of  inexorable 
and  insatiate  revenge.  Undeniably,  it  is  a  specimen  of  legis- 
lative policy,  which  takes  its  autlior  out  of  the  crowd  of  an- 
cient legislators,  and  places  him  on  an  eminence  far  above 
tliem  all. 

Loud  complaint  has  been  made  against  Moses  on  account 
of  the  number  of  crimes  made  capital  in  his  code.  But 
great  injustice  has  been  done  him  in  this  particular.  The 
crimes  punishable  with  death  by  his  laws  were  either  of  a 
deep  moral  malignity,  or  such  as  were  aimed  against  the  very 
being  of  the  State.  It  will  be  found,  too,  on  examination, 
that  there  were  but  four  classes  of  capital  offences,  known  to 
his  laws, — treason,  murder,  deliberate  and  gross  abuse  of 
parents,  and  the  more  unnatural  and  horrid  crimes  arising  out 
of  the  sexual  relation.  And  all  the  specifications  under  these 
classes  amounted  to  only  seventeen  ;  whereas,  it  is  not  two 
hundred  years  since  the  criminal  code  of  Great  Britain  num- 
bered one  hundred  and  forty-eight  crimes  punishable  with 
death, — many  of  them  of  a  trivial  nature,  as  petty  thefts  and 
trespasses  upon  property.  But  "  no  injury  simply  affecting 
property  could  draw  down  upon  an  Israelite  an  ignominious 
death.  The  Mosaic  law  respected  moral  depravity  more  than 
gold.  Moral  turpitude,  and  the  most  atrocious  expressions 
of  moral  turpitude, — these  were  the  objects  of  its  unsleeping 
severity."* 

The  principal  punishments,  known  to  the  Mosaic  code, 
were  the  sword,  stoning,  stripes,  compensations,  restitutions, 
reparation  of  losses,  and  fines.  Our  inspired  jurist  appointed 
no  ignominious  punishments  fur  the  living.  Blows  were  not 
regarded  in  that  light  by  the  Asiatics  ;  and  burning,  hanging, 
and  burying  beneath  a  pile  of  stones,  which  were  of  this  na- 
ture, were,  it  is  probable,  according  to  the  laws  of  Moses,  in- 
flicted after  death,  and   are,  therefore,  to  bo  looked  upon  as 

*  Springs  Obi.  of  the  World  to  the  Bible,  Lect.  3. 


264  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

posthumous  disgraces.  To  bis  everlasting  honor  Le  it  said, 
that  Moses  stained  not  his  penal  code  with  any  of  those  tor- 
turous and  lingering  punishments,  which  have  disgraced  the 
jurisprudence  of  so  numy  jjollshed  nations  since  his  day, — as 
breaking  on  the  wheel,  impaling,  flaying  alive,  roasting  over 
a  slow  fire,  drowning,  exposure  to  wild  beasts,  and,  above  ail, 
crucifixion,  that  horrid  ofispringof  ancient  barbarity,  in  which 
life  and  consciousness  and  intolerable  agony  were  prolonged, 
not  unfrequently  to  the  third  day,  and  sometimes  even  to  the 
seventh.  If,  then,  his  penal  inflictions  must  sometimes  be 
admitted  to  be  severe,  at  least  human  nature  is  never  com- 
pelled to  shudder  at  their  cruelty.* 

If  Moses  be  blamed  for  admitting  capital  punishments  into 
his  code,  be  must  even  bear  the  reproach  along  with  the 
purest,  wisest,  and  most  humane  jurists  of  all  ages.  The  great 
design  of  punishment  he  represents  to  be  the  protection  of 
society  and  the  vindication  of  law  and  justice.  Transgressors 
must  sufier,  not  simply,  or  chiefly,  that  they  themselves  may 
be  amended,  but,  to  use  his  own  expressive  language,  that 
others  "  may  hear,  and  fear,  and  commit  no  more  any  such 
evil."f  lie  was  quite  unacquainted  with  a  modern  refinement 
of  wisdom,  wliich  represents  the  reformation  of  the  criminal 
as  the  only  legitimate  end  of  punishment.  He  had  no  sym- 
pathy with  that  mawkish  philanthropy  which  pours  forlh 
such  floods  of  tears  over  the  fate  of  the  hardened  perpetrator 
of  crime,  that  it  has  scarcely  one  left  to  mingle  with  those  of 
the  unhappy  victims  of  his  villanies.  This  is  not  the  place  to 
vindicate  either  the  lawfulness  or  the  policy  of  capital  penal- 
ties. Let  the  jurisprudence  of  all  Christendom  stand  as  their 
defence.  It  may,  however,  be  observed,  in  passing,  that  such 
punishments  are  as  conformable  to  right  reason,  as  they  are  to 
revelation  and  the  practice  of  enlightened  legislators.  The 
equity  of  putting  a  murderer  to  death  arises  from  this,  among 

*  "  The  law  of  the  twelve  tables  is  full  of  very  cruel  punishments  ' 
Montesq.  ifp   of  Laws,  B.  6.  c.  15.  t  Deut  six  20. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  265 

other  considerations,  that  the  law  bj  which  he  is  punished 
was  made  for  his  own  security.  He  has  himself  enjoyed  the 
benefit  of  the  law,  which  condemns  him.  It  has  been  a  con- 
tinual shield  over  him  all  his  life.  Can  he,  then,  in  reason, 
object  to  it  ?* 

The  war  code  of  Moses  has  also  been  made  a  point  ol 
attack  by  the  enemies  of  revelation,  and  by  some  of  its  pro- 
fessed friends.  How  little  do  such  persons  know  of  it !  How 
slender  the  ground  for  their  assaults,  which  have  sometimes 
been  conducted  with  a  ferocity  equal  to  that  which  they  charge 
against  the  Hebrew  lawgiver  !  The  Canaanitish  wars,  which 
formed  no  part  of  the  general  war  system,  will  be  considered 
in  a  subsequent  part  of  the  present  chapter ;  and  the  other 
military  laws  of  Moses  will  receive  a  full  elucidation  in  one  of 
the  succeeding  books  of  this  treatise.  The  extraordinary 
mildness  of  these  laws  towards  the  citizen,  their  wise  modera- 
tion towards  the  enemy,  and  their  unexampled  tenderness 
towards  female  captives,  will  then  be  made  to  appear,  to  the 
satisfaction,  I  hope,  of  every  candid  inquirer.  It  will  be  seen, 
that  they  offer,  in  these  respects,  a  perfect  contrast  to  the  mil- 
itary laws  and  usages  of  other  ancient  nations,  even  of  those 
which  were  renowned  for  their  clemency  and  refinement. 
"  Lex  nulla  victo  parcit," — no  law  spares  the  vanquished, — 
was  the  great  military  maxim  of  antiquity.  It  was  the  right 
of  war,  recognized  by  all  nations,  questioned  by  none  ;  and 
often  the  conqueror  pushed  the  exercise  of  this  barbarous  right 
to  its  utmost  rigor.  He  sacked,  demolished,  burnt,  and  mur- 
dered, without  pity  for  age  or  sex.  Slavery  was  the  mildest 
lot  to  be  hoped  for  by  those  who  had  been  unfortunate  enough 
to  survive  the  carnage  of  the  combat.  In  this  manner  were 
treated  Sidon  by  Artaxerxes  Ochus  ;  Tyre,  by  Alexander  ;  the 
towns  of  the  Marsi,  by  Germanicus ;  and  Jerusalem,  by 
Titus.  "  It  was  thus,"  indignantly  exclaimed  the  authors  of 
the  Letters  of  certain  Jews  to  Voltaire,f  "  it  was  thus  that  the 

*  Montesq.  Sp.  of  Lawa  B.  15.  c.  2.  t  Letter  3. 


266  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

military  laws  of  the  Persians,  the  Greeks,  and   the  Romans 
were  mild,  and  those  of  the  Hebrews  barbarous." 

How  imperfectly  do  those  understand  the  Hebrew  legisla- 
tion, who  accuse  it  of  inhumanity !  Its  distinctive  character 
is  gentleness  and  beneficence.  Ko  ancient  legislation  will 
bear  a  moment's  comparison  w^th  it  in  this  respect.  It  forbids 
to  cherish  sentiments  of  hatred  and  revenge.*  It  enjoins  the 
forgetfulness  of  injuries,  tlie  cultivation  of  mutual  love,  and 
the  practice  of  kindness  even  to  enemies. f  It  commands 
respect  and  compassion  towards  the  aged,  the  deaf,  and  the 
blind.:}:  It  enjoins  that  the  traveller,  uncertain  of  his  route,  be 
directed  in  the  right  way.§  It  requires  benevolence  and  gen- 
erosity towards  the  poor,  the  widow,  the  orphan,  and  the 
stranger.!  For  them,  the  corners  of  the  field  were  to  remain 
unreaped,  and  the  forgotten  sheaf  was  to  be  left  where  it  had 
fallen.^  For  them,  the  husbandman  was  forbidden  to  go  over 
his  corn  patch  a  second  time,  or  to  twice  glean  the  grapes  of 
his  vineyard  and  shake  the  boughs  of  his  olive  trees.**  Ser- 
vants, engaged  in  the  preparation  of  food,  and  inen,  employed 
in  gathering  in  the  bounties  of  nature,  had  the  legal  right  to  taste 
the  fruits  and  viands,  about  which  they  were  busied.ff  Even 
animals  shared  in  the  thoughts  and  the  compassion  of  the  He- 
brew Lawgiver.:}::}:  "These  precepts  are  very  touching.  They 
are  the  finest  political  morality  ;  and  not  onl}^  very  high  moral- 
ity, but  very  deep  sentiment.  A  complete  collection  of  the 
rules  of  this  character,  scattered  through  the  Mosaic  legislation, 
■would  form  one  of  the  most  striking  collections  of  kind,  con- 
siderate, merciful  maxims  ever  known.§§  And  they  would 
prove  Moses  to  have  been,  not  only  a  wise  and  benevolent 

*  Lev.  xix.  17,  18.  f  Ex.  xxiii.  4,  5.  J  Lev.  xix.  14,  32. 

§  The  Jews  interpret  the  law  contained  in  Deut.  xxvii.  28,  as  extending 
to  travellers.     See  the  eleventh  of  the  Letters  of  certain  Jews  to  Voltaire. 
[I  Lev.  XXV.  35.     Ex.  xxii.  21.     Deut.  xxiv.  17. 
If  Lev.  xix.  9.     Deut.  xxiii.  19.  **  Deut.  xxiii.  19-21. 

ft  Deut.  XXV.  4.  Jl  Deut.  xxii.  6,  7.  xxv.  4. 

U  Lect.  3  of  Spring's  Obi.  of  the  World  to  the  Bible. 


^ 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  267 

legislator,  but  a  man  of  feeling,  delicacy,  and  refinement ;  a 
man  of  large  and  magnanimous  spirit ;  a  man  who  saw  iu 
every  other  man  a  brother,  and  with  whom  every  human 
form,  though  unblest  by  fortune  and  unknown  to  fame,  con- 
stituted a  sure  passport  to  his  sympathy,  his  solicitude,  and 
his  love. 

Surely,  such  a  system  of  laws  could  never  have  been  dic- 
tated by  a  barbarian  legislator  for  a  horde  of  savages.  It  is 
precisely  in  this  point  of  humanity,  that  the  Mosaic  legislation 
leaves  all  other  ancient  constitutions  far  behind,  and  shines 
with  a  preeminently  mild  and  genial  lustre. 

Another  objection  against  the  divine  origin  of  the  Mosaio 
legislation  is  grounded  on  its  tolerance  of  various  acknowl- 
edged social  evils, — polygamy,  slavery,  extra-judicial  divorce, 
and  blood-avengement.  "  The  laws  of  Moses  (says  the  ob- 
jector) are  not,  at  least  some  of  them  are  not,  the  best,  intrin- 
sically, that  could  be  framed  ;  therefore,  the  system  is  not  o± 
divine  original."  The  premises  in  this  argument  are  admitted  ; 
but  the  conclusion,  it  is  contended,  is  illogical.  The  absolute 
perfection  of  every  statute  in  a  civil  code  is  not  the  charac- 
teristic mark  of  inspiration  in  the  lawgiver  ;  but  the  highest 
excellence  attainable  under  all  the  circumstances  of  tlie  case. 
This  is  that  infallible  sign  of  the  Divinity,  which  fails  all  mere 
human  legislation  ;  but  it  may  be  asserted,  without  qualifica- 
tion, of  the  political  system  of  Moses. 

When  God  assumed  the  relation  of  king  to  the  Hebrew 
people,  two  general  methods  of  administration  were  open  to 
his  election ; — either  to  overrule  the  will  by  an  act  of  omnip- 
otence, or  to  influence  it  by  motives  addressed  to  the  under- 
standing and  the  conscience.  In  employing  the  former 
method,  his  power  would  be  the  chief  attribute  required  ;  in 
the  latter,  his  wisdom.  That  God  chose  to  deal  with  his  peo- 
■ple  as  accountable  agents,  and  that,  notwithstanding  the 
extraordinary  providence  by  which  they  were  conducted,  and 
the  constant  blaze  of  almighty  power  that  encircled  them,  the 


268  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

will  remained  ever  free  and  uncontrolled,  is  a  truth  written 
upon  every  page  of  the  history. 

God,  then,  as  temporal  sovereign  of  the  Israelites,  having 
chosen  this  method  of  government,  was  under  a  sort  of  neces- 
sity of  proceeding  upon  the  same  principles  with  any  wise 
human  legislator.  Now,  such  is  the  invincible  proneness  of 
man's  will  to  revolt  against  what  directly  opposes  its  preju- 
dices, that  prudent  lawgivers,  in  framing  laws  in  conflict  with 
these  prejudices,  have  always  found  it  necessary  to  yield  some- 
thing to  them  in  order  to  break  and  evade  the  force  of  human 
perversity. 

Thus  did  our  inspired  lawgiver  act  with  his  people,  who, 
if  he  had  not  indulged  them  in  some  things,  would  have 
revolted  against  all.  Hence  a  partial  toleration  of  some  social 
evils,  is  no  argument  against  a  divine  wisdom  in  the  lawgiver ; 
but  is,  on  the  contrary,  an  essential  attribute  of  such  wisdom, 
without  which  the  signature  of  its  divinity  would  be  wanting. 

To  jjlace  this  point  in  a  stronger  light,  let  us  suppose  that  a 
perfectly  wise  man  were  now  to  receive  full  authority  to  leg- 
islate for  China.  Would  he  frame  a  code  of  laws  for  the 
government  of  that  empire,  irrespective  of  the  ancient  cus- 
toms, the  cherished  opinions,  and  the  deep  rooted  prejudices 
of  the  nation,  which  are  strong  in  the  gathered  strength  of 
revolving  centuries?  Such  a  procedure  would  stamp  him  as 
a  fool,  instead  of  a  sage ;  and  would  inevitably  defeat  his  best 
intentions.  A  truly  wise  lawgiver  would  study  the  character 
and  circumstances  of  the  people.  lie  would  respect,  and,  to 
a  certain  extent,  even  flatter  their  prejudices.  He  would 
limit,  where  he  could  not  remove ;  modify,  where  he  could 
not  reverse ;  ameliorate,  where  he  could  not  perfect ;  and  so, 
by  degrees,  would  prepare  the  nation  for  improvements  in  the 
system  of  government,  more  radical  than  he  would  venture 
to  propose  at  first.  ISTo  really  wise  legislator  will  make  laws, 
which  shock  the  general  spirit  of  a  nation.* 

*  Montesq.  Sp.  of  Laws,  B.  19,  c.  11. 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  2&9 

Even  Eousseau  perceived  the  force  ana  acknowledged  the 
justness  of  this  principle.  In  his  treatise  on  the  social  com- 
pact, he  observes  :*  "  The  prudent  legislator  does  not  begin 
by  making  a  digest  of  salutary  laws,  but  examines  first 
whether  the  people  for  whom  such  laws  are  designed  are  capa- 
ble of  supporting  them.  It  was  for  this  reason  that  Plato  re- 
fused to  give  laws  to  the  Arcadians  and  Cyrenians,  knowing 
they  were  rich  and  luxurious,  and  could  not  admit  of  the 
introduction  of  equality  among  them.  *  *  *■  *  "W^hen 
customs  are  once  established  and  prejudices  have  taken  root 
among  a  people,  it  is  a  dangerous  and  fruitless  enterprise  to 
attempt  to  reform  them."  Again,  in  another  place  of  the 
same  treatise,  he  says  :f  "  Legislation  should  be  variously 
modified  in  different  countries,  according  to  local  situation, 
the  character  of  the  inhabitants,  and  those  other  circumstances, 
which  require  that  every  people  should  have  a  particular 
system  of  laws,  not  always  the  best  in  itself,  but  the  best 
adapted  to  the  state  for  which  it  is  calculated."  If  this  cele 
brated  infidel  had  been  writing  in  defence  of  the  actual  pro 
cedure  of  Moses  as  an  insi:)ired  lawgiver,  he  could  not  have 
uttered  any  thing  more  pertinent  or  forcible  than  these  sen 
tences.  Moses,  though  a  real  and  earnest,  was,  nevertheless 
an  enlightened  and  wise  reformer.  His  policy  was  to  correct 
errors  gradually  and  with  caution,  rather  than  to  attempt  the 
sudden  and  violent  eradication  of  them  ;  to  repair,  strengthen 
and  adorn  the  political  edifice,  rather  than  to  undermine  its 
foundations,  and  triumph  over  its  ruins.  He  well  knew,  that 
systems  of  government  grow  and  assume  form  and  solidity 
with  time ;  that,  however  bad  they  may  be,  they  come  at  length 
to  be  rooted  in  the  customs,  and  often  also  in  the  affections 
of  the  people;  and  that  to  violently  destroy  the  former  shocks 
and  deranges  the  latter,  and  so  produces  misery  rather  than 
happiness.:|:      "The   secret  of  great   statesmen,"   says   Nie- 

*  B.  2.  C.  8.  t  B.  2.  C.  11. 

X  See  President  Sparks'  Pref.  to  the  Am.  Ed.  of  Smith's  Lects.  on  Mod- 
ern History,  for  some  excellent  reflections  on  this  subject. 


270  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

bulir,*  "  is  the  gradual  development  and  improvement  of  the 
several  parts  of  an  actual  constitution  ;  they  never  attempt  to 
raise  an  institution  at  once  to  perfection."  ]^atious  are,  for  the 
most  part,  very  tenacious  of  their  customs,  and  very  apt  to 
revolt  against  violent  innovations.  Wise  statesmen,  therefore, 
do  not  change  them  suddenly,  but  lead  the  people  to  make 
the  change  themselves. f 

The  procedure  of  Moses  in  a  mere  human  lawgiver  would 
carry  all  voices,  as  the  very  perfection  of  political  prudence. 
And  shall  that  be  charged  as  imposture  in  him,  because  he 
claimed  to  act  under  a  divine  guidance,  which  would  be  hon- 
ored as  consummate  wisdom  in  a  Solon,  a  ISTuma,  a  Chatham, 
or  a  Washington  ?  Yet  this  is  what  the  infidel  and  the  ration- 
alist do  in  the  objection  which  we  are  considering.  Moses 
tolerated  polygamy,  divorce,  slavery,  and  the  avenging  of 
blood  in  the  death  of  the  murderer  by  the  nearest  of  kin  to 
the  slaughtered  victim.  But  he  evidently  did  not  approve 
these  things  any  more  than  the  most  hnmane  and  enliglitened 
legislator  of  modern  times.  Why,  then,  did  he  permit  them  ? 
Because  the  abolition  of  them,  at  the  time  and  under  the  cir- 
cumstances of  his  legislation,  would  have  endangered  his 
whole  polity.  They  had  been  practised  the  world  over  from 
time  immemorial.  They  were  inwoven  in  the  whole  frame- 
work of  society.  Their  propriety  and  even  necessity  were 
unquestioned.  And  they  had  long  since  gained  over  to  their 
support  those  master  passions  of  the  soul, — the  ambition  of 
lordship,  the  love  of  pleasure,  and  the  thirst  of  gain. 

Weigh  these  circumstances  in  a  just  balance,  and  cease  to 
wonder,  that  Moses  did  not  slay  at  a  blow  the  whole  brood, 
and  to  argue  thence  his  fraud  and  charlatanry.  Admire  rather 
the  generous  philanthropy  and  heroic  courage,  which  fired  his 
spirit  and  nerved  his  arm  in  the  work  of  reform.  Mark  the 
gentle  but  efficient  skill,  with  which  he  takes  out  their  sting, 

■*  Lect«.  on  the  Hist,  of  RomC;  p.  01. 
t  Montesq.  Sp.  of  Laws,  B.  19.  C.  14. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  271 

restrains  their  excesses,  mollifies  their  rigors,  and  almost 
reverses  their  properties  ;  and  then  acknowledge,  that  the 
hand  that  accomplished  all  this  must  indeed  have  been  guided 
by  a  wisdom  more  than  human. 

Again,  the  divine  mission  of  Moses  has  been  assailed  and 
denied,  because  he  admitted  into  his  code  the  primitive  and 
in  early  times  universal  principle  of  "  like  for  like,"  techni- 
cally called  the  "  lex  talionis."  It  is  thus  expressed  in  the 
2l8t  chapter  of  Exodus  :  "  Thou  shalt  give  life  for  life,  eye 
for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot,  burning 
for  burning,  wound  for  wound,  stripe  for  stripe."* 

It  is  admitted,  that,  as  a  law  of  private  vengeance,  none 
could  be  better  fitted  to  destroy  the  peace  and  safety  of  soci- 
ety, and  to  sow  the  seeds  of  hatred,  revenge,  and  all  unchar- 
itableness.  But  considered  as  the  rule  of  ofiicial  judgment  in 
cases  of  personal  injury,  it  appears  in  another  light,  and  is  to 
be  judged  upon  principles  diiferent  from  those  applicable  in 
the  former  case. 

Of  penal  laws,  it  is  the  most  ancient  on  record  ;  and  it  is, 
obviously,  founded  on  pure  natural  equity.  The  divine  gov- 
ernment itself  recognizes  the  justice  of  the  principle.  In  the 
providence  of  God,  crimes  and  punishments  often  correspond 
in  the  most  remarkable  manner.  'Indeed,  it  is  an  observation 
made  long  ago,  that  what  mischiefs  any  one  prepares  against 
another,  he,  without  knowing  it,  first  contrives  against  himself. 

However  widely  the  lex  talionis  deviates  from  our  penal 
laws,  it  accords  not  merely  with  the  usages  of  the  rude  and 
barbarous  nations  of  antiquity,  but  with  the  express  statutes 
of  nations  accounted  to  have  been  highly  civilized.  It  existed 
in  great  rigor  among  the  ancient  Athenians,  and  Solon  even 
ordained,  that  whoever  put  out  the  eye  of  a  one-eyed  person, 
should  for  so  doing,  lose  both  his  own.  It  constituted  a  part 
of  the  Roman  laws  of  the  twelve  tables,  so  famous  in  anti- 
quity ;   but   the  punishment   was    afterwards   changed   to  a 

*  Vv.  23,  24. 


272  COMMENTAKIEr    ON   THE 

pecuniary  fine,  to  be  levied  at  the  discretion  of  tbe  praetor. 
"  It  prevails  less  or  more,"  observes  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  "  in 
most  civilized  countries  ;  and  is  fully  acted  npon  in  tbe  canon 
law  in  reference  to  all  calumniators:  'If  the  calumniator  fail 
in  the  proof  of  his  accusation,  let  him  suffer  the  same  punish- 
ment, which  he  wished  to  have  inflicted  on  the  man,  whom 
he  falsely  accused.'  "* 

In  our  exposition  and  defence  of  this  law,  it  is,  as  already 
hinted,  important  to  observe,  that  it  did  not  authorize  the 
retaliation  of  injuries  by  individuals,  and  so  make  each  man 
a  judge  and  avenger  in  his  own  cause.  Such  a  principle  as 
this  never  entered  into  the  mind  of  the  Hebrew  lawgiver.  It 
is  abhon-ent  to  the  whole  genius  of  his  legislation,  and  would 
have  been  as  earnestly  repudiated  by  him,  as  it  is  by  any  one 
of  his  assailants.  In  every  instance  of  the  aj^plication  of  the 
principle  of  the  lex  talionis,  it  was  the  duty  of  a  legal  tribunal 
to  adjudge,  and  of  the  public  executive  power  to  inflict,  the 
punishment. 

Another  material  observation  is,  that  the  person  receiving 
the  injury  retained  always  the  natural  right  of  remitting  the 
punishment,  if  the  other  chose  to  compound  the  matter  by 
apologies  and  pecuniary  compensations.  The  law  does  not 
peremptorily  command  an  injured  person  to  avail  himself  of 
the  right  of  retaliation,  without  any  alternative.  It  only  fixes 
the  punishment,  to  which  the  author  of  an  injury  must  sub- 
mit, if  he  cannot  compound  matters  with  the  injured  party. 
Such  satisfactions  were  in  fact  so  common,  that  Moses  found 
it  necessary  to  restrain  the  use  of  them,  in  the  case  of  delib- 
erate murder  :  ''Ye  shall  take  no  satisfaction  for  the  life  of 
a  murderer."f 

The  law,  as  it  stands  in  the  Mosaic  code,  is  probably  to  be 
regarded  as  a  mere  declaration  of  the  general  principle,  that 
whoever  has  done  an  injui-y  to  another  is  bound  to  make 
suitable  reparation  for  the  wrong  which  he  has  committed ; 

*  Com.  on  Levit.  xxi  24.  f  Num.  xxxv.  31. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  273 

— a  principle  essential  to  the  safety  and  good  order  of  society 
— :i  principle,  indeed,  MMtbout  which  society  could  not  exist. 
But  even  if  interpreted  and  administered  literally,  how  iavor- 
ably  does  it  compare,  on  the  score  of  liberality,  with  what 
was,  at  no  distant  period,  the  law  of  our  British  ancestors ! 
It  is  not  so  very  long,  since  both  the  theory  and  practice  of 
British  jurisprudence  might  have  been  expressed,  not  in  tho 
Hebrew  formulary  of  "  an  eye  for  an  eye,"  but  in  such  max- 
ims as  "a  man  for  a  sheep,"  "a  man  for  a  guinea,"  nay,  mart 
it,  ye  who  stigmatize  the  Mosaic  law  of  retaliation  as  savoring 
of  barbarian  rudeness,  "a  man  for  a  twelve-pence-farthing!" 
The  usages  which  prevail  at  this  day  in  several  countries 
of  the  east  throw  light  upon  the  manner  in  which  the  law  of. 
retaliation  was,  in  all  probability,  administered  among  the 
ancient  Hebrews.  Burkhardt*  says  that  all  insulting  expres- 
sions, all  acts  of  violence,  a  blow  however  slight,  and  the  in- 
fliction of  a  wound  causing  a  single  drop  of  blood  to  flow, 
have  their  respective  fines  ascertained.  He  gives  an  amusing 
specimen  of  a  kadi's  sentence,  which  ran  thus :  "  Bokhyt 
called  Djolan  a  dog ;  Djolan  returned  the  insult  by  a  blow 
on  Bokhyt's  arm ;  then  Bokhyt  cut  Djolau's  with  a  knife. 
Bokhyt,  therefore,  owes  to  Djolan, — 

For  the  insulting  expression,         .         .         .1  sheep. 
'•    wounding  him  in  the  shoulder,       ,         .     3  camels. 
Djolan  owes  to  Bokhyt, 

For  the  blow  on  his  arm,      ....     1  camel. 

Remain  due  to  Djolan       .         .         ,2  camels  and  1  sheep." 

Tlie  baron  de  Montesquieu,f  a  writer  whose  humanity  and 
love  of  rational  liberty  are  equalled  only  by  the  depth  of  his 
genins,  the  solidity  of  his  judgment,  and  the  extent  of  his 
juridical  learning,  affirms,  that  all  the  punishments  inflicted 
upon  crimes,  that  attack  the  safety  of  the  citizen,  are  a  kind 
of  retaliation,  by  which  society  refuses  security  to  a  mem- 
ber, who  has  intentionally  deprived  another  of  his  security. 

*  Cited  by  Bush  on  Lev.  xxi.  24.  f  i^pirit  of  Laws. 


274  COMMENTARIES   ON    THE 

These  retaliatory  punishments,  he  says,  are  derived  from  the 
nature  of  the  thing,  founded  in  reason,  and  drawn  from  the 
very  source  of  good  and  evih  Thus  a  man  deserves  death 
when  he  has  viohated  the  security  of  society  so  far  as  to  de- 
pr.ye  another  man  of  his  life.  So  crime  committed  against 
the  security  of  property  should,  most  naturally,  be  punished 
with  the  loss  of  property.  And  this,  indeed,  ought  to  be  the 
case,  if  men's  fortunes  were  equal.  It  was  the  case  in  the 
Hebrew  polity,  where  all  the  citizens  possessed  landed  es- 
tates, of  a  less  or  greater  extent.  But,  as  in  most  states  there 
are  multitudes  without  property,  and  as  those  who  have  no 
property  of  their  own,  are  generally  the  readiest  to  attack  the 
property  of  others,  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  substitute  a 
corporeal  for  a  pecuniary  punishment.  So,  then,  according  to 
this  profound  jurist,  the  principle  of  the  lex  talionis  is  the 
principle  of  all  those  criminal  laws,  which  are  designed  to 
protect  the  citizen  from  injury  in  his  person  and  his  prop- 
erty. It  should  be  observed,  in  passing,  that  Moses  is  not 
the  originator  of  the  lex  talionis ;  but  that  in  admitting  it 
into  his  code,  he  simply  conformed  to  the  common  practice 
of  the  primitive  ages. 

It  has  often  been  alleged,  that  Christ*  made  war  upon  the 
lex  talionis  as  of  more  than  doubtful  morality,  and  thus  as- 
sumed an  attitude  of  direct  hostility  to  the  law  of  Moses. 
Such  an  idea  must  have  arisen  from  a  total  misconception  of 
his  words.  It  was  against  a  perversion  of  the  law,  that  Jesus 
levelled  his  reproofs.  The  persons  addressed  by  Moses  and 
by  Christ  belonged  to  distinct  classes.  Moses  speaks  to  the 
perpetrator  of  the  injury  and  tells  him,  that  he  was  bouiid  to 
give  "  eye  for  eye  and  tooth  for  tooth ;"  that  is,  to  make 
satisfaction  for  wrongs  and  injuries  committed  by  him. 
Christ,  on  the  other  hand,  addresses  the  injured  party,  and 
forbids  him,  as  an  individual,  to  give  vent  to  his  vindictive 

*  la  his  Serm,  on  the  Mount,  Mat.  v.  38,  39. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  275 

feelings, — abusing  a  rule  of  public  justice  to  the  indulgence 
of  private  revenge,  and  pleading  it  in  justification  of  bis  vin- 
dictiveness.  It  would  seem  tliat  in  the  time  of  our  Savior,  tbe 
jus  talionis  was  confounded  with  moral  principles,  that  is  to 
say,  it  was  held  that  the  law  of  Moses,  which  was  merely 
civil  or  penal,  justified  a  person,  in  a  moral  point  of  view,  in 
Inflicting  on  another  the  same  injury  which  he  had  received 
from  him.  The  persons,  who  give  this  exposition  to  the  law, 
do  not  appear  to  liave  recollected  its  true  character  as  a  civil 
or  penal  law,  nor  to  have  remembered,  that  the  literal  re- 
taliation could  not  take  place,  until  after  the  decision  of  a 
judge  on  a  suit,  brought  by  the  person  injured,  and  then  was 
never  to  exceed  the  original  injur3\*  Christ  made  no  refer- 
ence whatever  to  any  action  of  a  civil  tribunal,  whereas  the 
sole  reference  of  Moses  was  to  this  very  thing.  How  absurd 
to  allege  a  conflict  between  them,  when  their  discourse  does 
not  even  relate  to  the  same  matter ;  the  reference  of  one 
being  to  a  judicial  decision,  and  of  the  other  to  private  ven- 
geance. Thus  does  every  appearance  of  a  want  of  harmony 
between  the  different  parts  of  revelation  vanish,  when  the 
princij)les  of  common  sense  and  sober  criticism  are  applied 
to  their  interpretation. 

Another  objection  to  the  divine  original  of  the  law  of  Moses 
is,  that  it  omits  the  doctrine  of  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments. This  objection  is  unworthy  of  any  man  who  claims 
the  name  of  a  philosopher.  It  is  conceded,  that  Moses  did 
not  annex  to  his  laws  the  promised  joys  and  threatened  ter- 
rors of  eternity.  And  what  inference  is  to  be  drawn  from 
the  omission  ?  Had  he  introduced  such  sanctions,  lie  would 
have  been  chargeable  with  a  flagrant  incongruity.  In  exclud- 
ing them,  he  acted  conformably  to  the  nature  of  his  mission 
Who  and  what  was  Moses?  The  founder  of  a  civil  polity  ;  a 
polity,  no  doubt,  designed  to  keep  up  the  knowledge  and  wor- 

*  Jahn's  Bib.  Arch.  S.  256. 


L^.b  COMMENTAEIES    ON   THE 

sliip  of  the  true  God,  in  opposition  to  the  absurd  dcctriues 
aud  impure  rites  of  idolatry,  and  to  foreshadow  and  introduce 
the  christian  dispensation  ;  yet  still,  in  the  strict  sense,  a  civil 
polity.  And  what  proper  connexion  have  the  terrors  of  eter- 
nity with  a  code  of  civil  laws?  It  thus  appears,  that  the 
Hebrew  legislator  was  restrained  from  annexing  future  punish- 
ments as  sanctions  to  his  laws,  by  considerations  arising  from 
the  character  of  his  mission,  and  the  nature  of  the  institutions, 
which  he  was  commissioned  to  establish.  But  did  not  Moses, 
therefore,  believe  in  such  punishments?  How  absurd  would 
such  an  inference  be  !  As  well  might  we  lay  the  sweeping 
charge  of  national  infidelity  at  the  door  of  Great  Britain  and 
the  United  States,  because  the  British  parliament  and  the 
American  congress  do  not  enforce  the  enactments  in  their 
statute-books  with  such  sanctions.  But  to  proceed  forth  from 
this  point,  and  argue,  as  Bishop  Warburton*  has  done,  an  igno- 
rance in  the  ancient  sons  of  Jacob  of  a  future  world,  shocks 
all  our  religious  feelings.  To  a  mind  intent  on  discovering 
the  truth,  instead  of  defending  a  fanciful  theory,  and  that  will 
fairly  survey  all  the  grounds  of  an  opinion  in  the  premises, 
hardly  anything  can  be  plainer,  than  that  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  life  and  of  future  retributions,  was  well  known,  and 
held  with  a  firm  grasp,  by  the  pati'iarchs  and  their  descend- 
ants ;  and  by  none  of  them,  with  a  more  living  power,  than 
by  the  great  lawgiver  and  founder  of  the  state. 

"  But  although  Moses  does  not  annex  the  sanctions  of  a  fu- 
ture life  to  the  violation  of  his  laws,  there  is  a  most  remarka- 
ble peculiarity  in  his  procedure  with  regard  to  punishments, 
which  distinguishes  him  from  all  other  legislators.  It  is  this  : 
He  threatens  the  whole  nation,  if  as  a  nation  they  should 
wickedly  transgress  his  laws,  with  punishments  in  this  life, 
which  no  human  power  could  execute;  but  which  the  divine 
providence  could,  and  certainly  would,  inflict  upon  the  people 
and  the  land.     No  mere  human  legislator  could  have  done 

*  Div.  Leg.  passim. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  2  4  i 

this;  at  least,  could  so  have  done  it,  as  that  the  issue  should 
not  expose  to  the  people  the  emptiness  of  his  threatenings.  It 
is  the  sure  criterion  of  an  immediate  inessenger  from  heaven, 
enacting  laws  by  command  of  the  Most  High."* 

One  further  objection  to  the  divine  mission  of  the  Jewish 
lawgiver  I  notice.  It  may  be  expressed  in  the  following  sen- 
tences :  "  Moses  could  not  have  acted  under  a  divine  com- 
mission, or  he  would  never  have  enacted  laws  involving  a  di 
rect  and  manifest  breach  of  the  most  sacred  rules  of  justice. 
What  right  had  the  Hebrews  to  injure  the  Canaanites,  either 
in  their  persons  or  their  estates  ?  They  had  never  -been  thus 
injured  by  the  latter  ;  and  they  could,  therefore,  have  no  plau- 
sible pretence,  much  less  any  just  warrant,  to  make  war  upon 
them,  and  strip  them  of  their  territories."! 

So  the  case  is  often  put.  But  the  true  question  is  not,  what 
right  the  Israelites  had  to  the  land  of  the  Canaanites,  nor 
whether  they  had,  in  themselves,  any  right  at  all.  It  is, 
whether  God,  as  sovereign  owner  and  ruler  of  the  world,  had 
a  right  to  punisli  their  abominable  wickedness  by  the  agencies 
actually  employed,  and  whether  it  was  the  dictate  of  wisdom 
and  goodness  to  use  such  means  for  the  abolition  of  idolatry  ? 
The  crimes  of  the  Canaanites  were  of  such  a  nature,  that  no 
pretence  to  freedom  of  thought  and  liberty  of  conscience 
would,  in  any  well-ordered  human  government,  be  allowed  as 
a  justification  of  them,  or  as  a  bar  to  the  infliction  of  condign 
punishment.  And  shall  it  be  said,  that  the  supreme  lawgiver 
and  judge  is  hindered  by  justice  from  recalling  a  life,  which 
has  been  forfeited  to  civil  society,  and  which  the  civil  law  it- 
self might  take  away  by  the  hand  of  a  common  executioner  ? 

*  Mich.  Com.  on  the  laws  of  Mos.  Art.  8, 

t  Various  answers  have  been  given  by  different  writers  to  this  objection. 
The  most  rational  and  satisfactory  defence  of  the  command  to  extermiuate 
the  Canaanites,  which  I  have  ever  met  with,  is  the  one  offered  in  the  test. 
The  reader  will  find  it  handled  much  more  at  large,  in  Lowman's  excellent 
chapter  on  th^s  subject  in  his  Civ.  Gov.  of  the  Hebrews. 


2Y8  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

Those  who  contend  for  siicb  a  doctrine,  cannot,  surely,  be 
aware  of  the  consequences,  to  which  it  would  lead.  If  con- 
siderations of  justice  forbid  the  Deity  to  punish  flagitious 
oflFenders  by  a  forfeiture  of  the  blessings  of  this  life,  the  same 
considerations  would  operate  as  a  bar  to  any  penal  inflictions 
whatsoever  at  his  hand.  So  that,  upon  this  principle,  crime 
would  enjoy  a  perfect  immunity  from  punishment,  so  far  as 
the  divine  government  is  concerned.  Besides,  what  would  be 
unjust  in  God,  must  be  equally  unjust  in  men;  and  hence  it 
will  follow,  that  all  the  laws  of  society  to  punish  and  restrain 
the  most  flagitious  offenders,  are  nothing  less  than  usurpation, 
and  an  unjust  invasion  and  abridgement  of  personal  liberty. 
And  so  the  principle  will  end  in  the  utter  subversion  of  all 
government,  human  and  divine ;  and,  on  pretence  of  main- 
taining the  rights  of  justice,  it  will  efi^ectually  and  forever 
banish  justice  from  the  earth,  aye,  and  from  heaven  too.  It 
must,  therefore,  be  held  to  have  been  just  in  God  to  punish 
the  idolatry  of  the  Canaanites,  with  the  forfeiture  of  their 
estates,  their  liberties,  and  even  their  lives. 

But  granting  so  much,  the  objector  still  asks,  "  Why  did 
not  God  punish  the  Canaanites  by  his  own  hand, — by  earth- 
quake, tempest,  famine,  pestilence,  or  inundation?  Why 
should  he  commission  the  Hebrews  to  dispossess  them  of 
their  lands,  especially  as  such  an  example  would  be  liable  to 
the  most  dangerous  abuses,  and  might  be  pleaded  by  every 
enthusiast  or  impostor,  as  a  v\^arrant  for  invading  and  robbing 
his  neighbors,  under  pretence  of  religion,  and  in  the  name 
of  the  most  holy  ?  A  procedure  of  this  nature  has  very  little 
the  appearance  of  wisdom,  and  still  less  of  goodness." 

Thus  reasons  the  objector.  In  opposition  to  this  logic, 
which  wears  an  imposing  air  of  humanity  and  regard  to  the 
divine  honor,  I  maintain,  that,  considering  the  abolition  of 
idolatry  as  one  grand  design  of  the  Mosaic  polity,  the  means 
employed  for  the  accomplishment  of  that  end,  were  the  dic- 
tate of  consummate  wisdom  and  benevolence. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  279 

For,  in  the  first  place,  we  know  that  the  most  terrific  visi- 
tations of  divine  providence  had  been  tried  without  efl'ect. 
Had  not  the  wnole  antediluvian  world,  amounting  probably 
to  hundreds  of  millions  of  sinners,  found  one  common  grave 
in  the  waters  of  a  universal  deluge?  Ilad  not  Sodom  ajid 
Gomorrah,  Aclmah  and  Zeboim,  in  this  very  land  of  Canaan, 
been  whelmed  beneath  a  fiery  tempest  for  their  crimes  ?  Had 
not  ghastly  famine  glutted  its  voracious  appetite  with  tens  of 
thousands  of  these  idolaters,  when  it  drove  the  Israelites 
down  to  Egypt  for  bread  ?  And  what  the  better  were  men 
for  these  direful  punishments?  Did  they  not,  on  the  con- 
trary, become  dail}^  more  besotted  and  daring  in  their 
impiety  ? 

But,  in  the  second  place,  unfruitful  seasons,  sickness, 
whelming  waters,  and  the  blasting  thunderbolt  would  be  con- 
sidered but  as  common  accidents  ;  or  rather,  they  would  be 
interpreted  as  proceeding  from  the  vengeance  of  their  demons, 
and  so,  instead  of  rooting  out  idolatry,  would  add  fresh  vigor 
to  its  growth. 

And  this  leads  to  the  third  and  principal  observation,  which 
I  have  to  submit  in  this  argument.  It  is  this  : — God  gave  the 
territories  of  the  Canaanites  into  the  hands  of  the  Hebrews, 
coupled  with  a  reason  for  the  grant  and  a  condition  of  its 
perpetuity,  which  were  in  themselves  a  public  condemnation 
of  idolatry,  and  a  standing  confutation  of  it.  Both  the  reason 
and  the  condition  are  thus  expressed  in  the  18th  chapter  of 
Leviticus  :  "The  land  is  defiled  ;  therefore  I  do  visit  the  ini- 
quities thereof  upon  it,  and  the  land  itself  vomileth  out  its 
inhabitants.  Ye  shall,  therefore,  keep  my  statutes  and  my 
judgments,  and  shall  not  commit  any  of  these  abominations  ; 
that  the  land  spew  not  you  out  also,  when  ye  defile  it,  as  it 
spewed  out  the  nations  that  were  before  you.  For  whosoever 
shall  commit  any  of  these  abominations,  even  the  souls  that 
commit  them  shall  be  cut  ofiT."* 

*  Vv.  25-29. 


280  COMMEJSTAKIES    ON   THE 

Here  both  the  right  of  possession  and  the  obligation  of  sur- 
render are  very  phiinly  set  down.  x\nd  how  does  the  record 
represent  the  matter?  The  Canaanites  are  expelled  from 
their  country'  for  their  abominable  idolatries.  The  Israelites 
are  put  in  possession  of  their  lands,  on  profession  of  their 
faith  in  the  one  supreme  and  living  God,  and  are  to  hold 
them  only  so  long  as  they  keep  themselves  from  the  like 
abominations.  And  the  power  and  truth  c^  Jehovah  are 
pledged  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  and  the  exaction  of 
the  forfeiture,  in  opposition  to  the  power  of  all  the  idol  gods, 
worshipped  by  the  neighboring  heathen  nations. 

How  admirable  is  the  wisdom  displayed  in  this  arrange- 
ment !  How  far  does  it  transcend  all  that  mere  human  saga- 
city could  have  contrived  !  Natural  evils  of  the  most  dread- 
ful kind  had  been  tried  in  vain.  Tlie  corruption  of  men's 
minds  was  such  as  to  convert  evils  of  this  nature  rather  into 
a  means  of  strengthening  than  of  destroying  idolatry.  What 
remedy  could  be  devised,  adequate  to  the  removal  of  the 
evil  ?  Human  wisdom  must  here  acknowledge  itself  com- 
pletely at  fault.  But  the  things  that  are  impossible  with 
men,  are  possible  with  God.  He  drives  out  a  nation  of  idol- 
ater's from  their  possessions,  and  plants  in  them  another,  of  an 
opposite  and  purer  faith.  He  makes  the  grant  of  these  lat\ds 
to  the  latter  perpetual,  on  condition  of  their  adherence  to  the 
faith  and  worship,  on  which  it  is  founded.  And  by  an  ex- 
traordinary providence,  maintained  from  age  to  age,  he  vin- 
dicates his  own  uncontrollable  sovereignty  and  omnipotence, 
over  the  pretended  power  of  the  w^hole  rabble  of  heathen 
divinities.  What  other  confutation  of  the  hopes  of  idolaters, 
what  other  encouragement  of  the  hopes  of  the  worshippers  of 
ihe  true  God,  can  be  imagined,  comparable  to  this?  Grat- 
itude for  innumerable  deliNcrances  and  innumerable  blese- 
mgs ;  a  contempt  for  idols,  generated  and  strengthened  by  a 
thousand  manifest  proofs  of  their  utter  nothingness  ;  a  solemn 
dread  ot  the  vengeance  of  an  ever   present  and  almighty 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  281 

power ;  the  clearest  calculations  of  interest ;  and  the  very 
instinct  of  self-preservation,  the  strongest  that  our  nature 
owns, — were  thus  all  enlisted  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  divine  unity,  and  became  so  many  props  and  guaranties 
for  the  worship  of  the  one  true  God. 

As  to  the  apprehension  that  such  a  commission  from  God 
as  that  which  Moses  held,  will  countenance  the  reveries  of 
enthusiasm  or  the  artifices  of  imposture,  it  is  but  a  panic 
dread.  So  long  as  pretence  and  reality  are  not  convertible 
terms,  and  the  ideas  suggested  by  them  do  not  coalesce  in  one 
and  the  same  thing,  so  long  all  such  fears  will  be  irrational 
and  groundless.  When  any  man  will  show  me  the  same 
proofs  of  a  divine  mission,  that  Moses  showed  his  countrymen, 
when  for  forty  successive  years  I  shall  see  the  elements  above, 
beneath,  and  around  me  contradicting  the  laws  of  nature  in 
obedience  to  one  who  claims  to  act  under  a  commission  from 
the  author  of  nature,  and  who  alone  has  power  to  control, 
suspend,  or  reverse  those  laws,  then  will  I  open  my  ear  to  his 
doctrine,  yield  my  conscience  to  his  guidance,  and  to  every 
contemptuous  sneer  and  profane  censure  I  will  answer,  in  the 
adoring  words  of  Eliphaz  the  Temanite  : — "  Shall  mortal  man 
be  more  just  than  God  ?  Shall  a  man  be  more  pure  than  his 
Maker?*  Till  then,  I  shall  continue  to  regard  the  apprehen- 
sion of  danger  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  nations,  from  the 
command  of  Jehovah  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  for  their 
idolatries,  either  as  the  mere  whimsy  of  a  morbid  imagina- 
tion, or  as  one  of  the  many  hypocritical  pretences,  with  which 
infidelity  seeks  to  veil  its  hatred  of  God  and  religion. 

Besides  the  objections  considered  above  to  the  genuineness, 
authenticity,  and  inspiration  of  the  Pentateuch,  many  others 
have  been  made.    They  are  such  as  these  following : 

The  moral  and  religious  conceptions  of  more  enligliteued 
ages  are  often  shocked  by  the  doctrines  of  the  Pentateuch. 

*  Job  iv.  17, 


282  COMMENTARIES    3N   THE 

Several  of  its  statements  are  opposed  to  the  facts  and  deduc- 
tions of  modern  pliysical  science. 

Many  of  its  representations  of  the  Deity  are  unworthy  of 
the  true  God,  and  imply  very  rude  notions  of  his  nature. 

It  is  filled  with  contradictions  and  discrepancies. 

The  art  of  writing  was  unknown,  or  at  least  not  in  use,  in 
the  time  of  Moses ;  of  course,  he  could  not  have  been  the 
author  of  it. 

The  style  of  the  Pentateuch  is  too  much  like  the  style  of 
the  later  Hebrew  writers  to  admit  the  supposition,  that  its 
composition  belongs  to  the  high  antiquity  commonly  ascribed 
to  it. 

The  work  relates  events  posterior  to  the  time  of  Moses ; 
how,  then,  could  he  be  the  author  of  it? 

It  uniformly  speaks  of  Moses  in  the  third  person,  and  not 
in  the  first.  This  is  a  modesty  unsuited  to  his  ofiicial 
character. 

The  Pentateuch  is  replete  with  inconsistencies,  incredibili- 
ties, and  impossibilities ; — as  the  whole  of  the  ceremonial 
law ;  the  rite  of  circumcision  ;  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  ; 
the  laws  respecting  slavery ;  the  distinction  of  meats ;  the 
number  of  the  Israelites  on  their  egress  from  Egypt;  Pha- 
raoh's command  to  destroy  their  male  children ;  their  tame 
submission  to  it,  supposing  it  to  have  been  really  given ;  most 
of  the  events  connected  with  their  departure  from  Egypt; 
their  spoiling  of  the  Egyptians ;  the  number  of  their  flocks 
and  herds ;  the  amount  of  their  wealth ;  their  skill  in  the 
mechanic  arts  ;  the  story  about  the  quenching  of  their  thirst 
at  Marah  and  Horeb  ;  the  law  against  destroying  all  the  in- 
habitants of  Palestine  at  once,  lest  wild  beasts  should  increase 
upon  them ;  the  command  to  destroy  witches,  &c.,  (fee,  &c. 

All  these  objections,  and  others  of  a  like  nature,  have  been 
made  by  infidel  and  rationalistic  writers ;  and  they  have 
been  repeated  and  enforced  by  Dr.  Norton,  formerly  profes- 
sor of  divinity  in  Harvard  university,  with  much  learning 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBKEWS.  283 

and  ability,  in  an  elaborate  note  appended  tc  tie  second 
volume  of  his  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels.*  Some  of  them 
are  trivial  and  impertinent ;  some  have  no  fomidation  in  fact 
or  reason ;  but  others,  it  must  be  owned,  offer  to  the  candid 
inquirer  difficulties  of  no  inconsiderable  magnitude.  It  does 
not  fall  within  the  province  of  the  present  work  to  replj  to 
objections  of  this  sort.  The  most  of  them  have  been  refuted, 
again  and  again,  by  learned  and  able  defenders  of  divine 
revelation.f  My  object  in  bringing  them  to  the  notice  of  the 
reader  is  to  state  a  general  principle  concerning  difficulties, 
which  has  an  eminent  applicability  here.  The  principle  is, 
that  often,  in  things  which  are  invested  with  the  highest  cer- 
tainty, difficulties  still  inhere,  which  we  find  ourselves  quite 
incapable  of  resolving  to  our  own  satisfaction. :{:  This  incapa- 
city on  our  part  is  nothing  more  than  the  natural  consequence 
of  the  limited  powers  of  the  human  understanding,  or  the 
limited  attainments  we  have  made  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
subject  under  investigation.  It  results  from  the  princijDle  just 
stated,  that,  when  a  truth  is  proved  by  solid  reasons,  the  diffi- 
culties which  may  still  inhere  in  it,  ought  not  to  weaken  our 
conviction,  provided  they  are  difficulties,  which  only  puzzle 
the  mind,  without  invalidating  the  proofs  themselves.  There 
is  a  broad  difference  between  seeing  that  a  thing  is  absurd  in 
itself,  and  not  comprehending  every  thing  that  belongs  to  it ; 
and  a  difference  quite  as  broad  between  an  unanswerable 
question  in  relation  to  a  particular  truth  and  an  unanswerable 
objection  against  it.  Multitudes  there  are,  who  confound  these 
two  sorts  of  difficulties,  though  no  two  things  can  be  more 
distinct  than  they.  Suppose,  for  example,  that  I  were  unable 
to  answer  the  vulgar  objection  to  the  rotundity  of  the  earth, 

*  Pp.  48-200  of  the  Add"!.  Notes. 

t  See  Hengsten.  on  Eg.  and  the  Bks.  of  JNIos.,  Jahn  on  the  Lang,  and 
Style  of  the  Pent.,  Stuart  on  the  Canon  of  the  0.  T.,  Graves  on  the  Pent., 
and  two  elaborate  Arts,  in  the  Bib.  Sac.  for  ISIay  and  Nov.  1845. 

X  Burlam.  Princ.  of  Nat.  Law,  c.  2. 


284  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

that  in  that  case  the  people  on  the  opposite  side  must  fall  off; 
would  such  inability  stagger  my  belief  of  it,  the  proofs  re- 
maining as  they  are?  Must  not  the  proofs  themselves  be 
invalidated,  before  I  will  consent  to  give  up  my  conviction  ? 
"When  I  come  to  understand  the  law  of  gravitation,  I  can 
exj^laiu  the  difficulty  to  the  peasant's  satisfaction,  as  well  as 
to  my  own.  Now  let  us  apply  this  illustration.  Suppose  it 
to  be  objected  to  the  law, — "  Ye  shall  not  round  the  corners 
of  your  heads,  neither  shalt  thou  mar  the  corners  of  thy 
beard,"* — that  it  is  too  trivial  to  have  proceeded  from  God ; 
and  suppose,  further,  that  I  am  unable  to  assign  any  reason 
for  the  introduction  into  the  code  of  a  statute  apparently  so 
unimportant ;  should  I,  on  account  of  my  inability  to  answer 
the  objection,  surrender  my  faith  in  the  divine  mission  of  the 
lawgiver,  while  so  many  and  so  solid  grounds  of  it  remain  ? 
The  moment  I  come  to  know,  that  the  law  in  question  was 
levelled  against  idolatry,  and  that  it  was  both  designed  and 
adapted  to  counteract  that  baleful  system,  the  difficulty  van- 
ishes entirely.  The  difference,  then,  between  an  unanswerable 
objection  against  a  proposition  and  an  unanswerable  question 
relating  to  it,  seems  to  be  this  :  An  unanswerable  objection 
proves,  that  what  was  before  taken  for  a  truth  cannot  be  true, 
because  the  admission  of  it  would  involve  some  absurdity; 
an  unanswerable  question  proves  only  our  ignorance  of  some 
points  connected  with  a  known  truth.  The  former  is  relative 
to  the  substance  of  the  matter ;  the  latter  is  relative  only  to 
our  want  of  knowledge  concerning  it.f 

*  Lev.  xix.  27. 

f  There  are  few  persons,  who  have  paid  much  attention  to  the  study  of 
the  0.  T.,  and  particularly  of  the  Pentateuch,  who  will  not  fully  sympa- 
thize with  the  late  Prof.  Stuart  in  the  following  remarks,  which  occur  in 
the  Introduction  to  his  work  on  the  Canon  of  the  0.  T.  The  learned 
author  has  but  given  form  and  voice  to  feelings,  which  must  be  familiar 
to  the  consciousness  of  every  thoughtful  and  candid  inquirer.  "  In  the 
early  part  of  my  biblical  studies,''  he  says,  "  some  30-35  years  ago,  when 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBKEWS.  285 


^'oTE  ON  Bishop  Waeburton's  Opinion  concekning  thk 
Ignorance  of  the  ancient  Israelites  of  a  Future 
State  of  Rewards  and  Punishments. 

The  tlieorj  of  this  celebrated  prelate  having  been  alluded 
to  in  the  preceding  chapter,*  a  brief  glance  at  it,  as  we  pass 
along,  may  not  be  unacceptable  to  the  reader.  The  object  of 
the  fifth  book  of  tlie  Divine  Legation,  is  to  prove,  "  that  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments  is  not 
to  be  found  in,  and  did  not  make  part  of,  the  Mosaic  dispen- 
sation.f  The  following  are  the  author's  principal  positions 
on  this  subject :  "  In  no  one  place  of  the  Mosaic  institutes,  is 
there  the  least  mention,  or  any  intelligible  hint,  of  the  re- 
wards and  punishments  of  another  life.":}:  Again  :  "  The 
Israelites,  from  the  time  of  Moses,  to  the  time  of  their  captiv- 
ity, had  not  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and 
punishments."§     These  expressions  are  sufficiently  bold  and 

I  first  began  the  critical  investigation  of  the  Scriptures,  doubts  and  diffi- 
culties started  up  on  every  side  like  the  armed  men  vrhom  Cadmus  is 
fabled  to  have  raised  up.  Time,  patience,  continued  study,  a  better  ac- 
quaintance with  the  original  scriptural  languages,  and  the  countries  where 
the  sacred  books  were  written,  have  scattered  to  the  winds  nearly  all  these 
doubts.  I  meet,  indeed,  with  difficulties  still,  which  I  cannot  solve  at  once; 
with  some,  where  even  repeated  efforts  have  not  solved  them.  But  I  quiet 
myself  by  calling  to  mind,  that  hosts  of  other  difficulties,  once  apparently 
to  mo  as  formidable  as  these,  have  been  removed,  and  have  disappeared 
from  the  circle  of  my  troubled  vision.  Why  may  I  not  hope,  then,  as  to 
the  difficulties  which  remain  ?  Every  year  is  now  casting  some  new  light 
on  the  bible,  and  making  plain  some  things,  which  aforetime  were  either 
not  understood,  or  were  misunderstood.  Why  may  not  my  difficulties  be 
reached  by  some  future  progressive  increase  of  light  ?"  For  one,  I  can  say 
that  my  experience  exactly  corresponds  with  this;  and  I  have  attained  to 
that  state  of  mind,  in  which,  whenever  a  difficulty  occurs,  which  I  cannot 
satisfactorily  explain,  I  uniformly,  and  without  hesitation,  set  it  down  as 
relative  to  my  own  ignorance,  and  not  to  the  substance  of  the  thing  itself, 
*  P.  275.  t  B.  5,  S.  1.  t  B-  5,  S.  5.  §  B.  5,  S.  5. 


286  COMMENTAKIES   ON    THE 

energetic ;  but  those  wLicli  follow  are  still  more  so.  "  In 
none  of  the  different  circumstances  of  life,  in  none  of  their 
various  casts  of  composition,  do  we  ever  find  them  acting  on 
the  motives,  or  influenced  by  the  prospect,  of  future  rewards 
and  punishments,  or  indeed  expressing  the  least  hope  or  fear 
or  common  curiosity  concerning  them ;  but  every  thing  they 
do  or  say  respects  the  present  life  only,  the  good  and  ill  of 
which  are  the  sole  objects  of  all  their  pursuits  and  aver- 
sions.'"* Again :  "  I  infer,  as  amidst  all  this  variety  of 
writing  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  never  once  appears  to 
have  had  any  share  in  this  people's  thoughts,  it  never  did, 
indeed,  form  any  part  of  their  religious  opinions."  "  Their 
subterfuge  is  quite  cut  ofl",  who  pretend,  that  Moses  did  not 
indeed  propagate  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  rewards 
and  punishments  in  writing,  but  that  he  delivered  it  to  tradi- 
tion. For  we  see  he  was  so  far  from  teaching  it,  that  he 
studiously  contrived  to  keep  it  out  of  sight,  nay,  provided  for 
the  want  of  it ;  and  that  the  people  were  so  far  from  being 
influenced  by  it,  that  they  had  not  even  the  idea  of  it."f 

These  are  strange  and  startling  declarations.  How  clearly 
do  they  evince  the  blinding  power  of  a  predominant  love  of 
system  over  a  genius  of  unsurpassed  vigor  and  brilliancy ! 
No  intelligible  hint  of  another  life  in  the  Mosaic  writings ! 
No  trace  of  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  in  the  Jewish  scrip- 
tures before  the  captivity !  No  evidence  of  higher  motives 
to  virtue  from  Moses  to  Ezra  than  such  as  are  connected  with 
the  present  world  !  Let  us  look  a  little  into  the  sacred  books 
of  the  Israelites,  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  whether  the  posi- 
tions of  this  distinguished  and  learned  prelate  are  sustained 
by  them. 

The  eternity  of  the  supreme  being  is  distinctly  taught  in 
the  Pentateuch.  I  AM  THAT  I  AM;};  is  the  sublime  title, 
under  which  he  reveals  himself.  Now,  in  the  very  first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  in  the  record  of  that  great  transaction,  in 

*  B.  5  S.  5.  t  B.5,  S  5  J  Ex.  iii.  14. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  287 

which  the  history  of  our  world  begins,  Moses  says,  "  God 
created  man  in  his  own  image."*  Would  it  not  be  a  frigid 
interpretation  of  these  words,  which  would  restrict  their 
meaning  to  the  mere  assertion,  that  God  had  endowed  man 
with  a  somewhat  higher  intelligence  than  other  animals? 
Do  they  not  more  than  hint  the  doctrine,  that  the  soul  of 
man  is  kindred  to  the  Deity,  not  only  in  the  possession  of 
reason,  freedom  of  will,  and  moral  rectitude,  but  also  of  a 
nature  adapted  and  desti^ied  to  immortality  ?  It  seems  to 
me,  that  any  lower  interj)retation  would  eliminate  all  proper 
meaning  from  them,  and  reduce  them  to  a  piece  of  idle  bom- 
bast. The  soundest  interpreters  assign  this  force  to  the  ex- 
pression. Dean  Gravesf  says  :  "The  expression  of  the  image 
of  God  plainly  implies  the  idea  of  the  soul's  immortality." 
The  same  writer  cites  Abarbanel,  Tertullian,  Yatablus, 
Paulus  Fagius,  Edwards,  Augustin,  Poole,  and  Patrick  as 
holding  the  same  view. 

In  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  we  have  an  account  of 
the  trial  of  our  first  parents.  The  penalty  of  failure  was  to 
be  death.  Does  not  this  clearly  impl}^  the  promise  of  life  as 
the  reward  of  obedience  ?  And  the  life,  thus  implicitly  pro- 
mised, must  have  been  an  endless  one ;  otherwise  death 
would  have  followed  obedience  as  well  as  disobedience,  and 
the  distinction  between  virtue  and  vice  WTjuld  have  been 
destroyed. 

The  third  chapter  contains  a  history  of  the  fall  of  man. 
The  execution  of  the  threatened  sentence  is  suspended,  and 
a  future  deliverer  and  redeemer  is  promised.  Thereupon 
Adam  changed  the  name  of  his  wife,  and  called  her  Eve, 
"  because,"  says  the  historian,  "  she  was  the  mother  of  all 
living.":]:  This  is  a  remarkable  record.  It  deserves  to  be 
deeply  studied.  At  first  he  had  called  her  by  a  name,  which 
signified  simply  a  "  female  man."  Now  he  changes  that  ap- 
pellation  to    another   signifying   "  life."     AVhercfore  such  a 

*  Gen.  i.  27.  f  On  the  Pont  Pt.  3,  Lect.  4.  J  V.  20. 


288  COMMENTAKIES   ON   THE 

change  ?  One  should  rather  suppose,  that  he  would  now  call 
her  by  a  name  denoting  death.  "What  rational  explanation 
can  be  given  of  the  change  actually  made,  except  that  it  is 
an  expression  of  Adam's  faith  in  the  promise  of  a  new  and 
immortal  life  to  be  bestowed  upon  him  and  his  posterity, 
through  the  intervention  of  the  predicted  deliverer? 

In  the  next  chapter  the  historian  informs  us  of  the  offerings 
of  Cain  and  Abel ;  of  the  rejection  of  the  former  and  accept- 
ance of  the  latter;  and  of  the  foul  murder  perpetrated,  in 
consequence,  upon  Abel,  by  his  elder  brother.  What  do  we 
see  here  ?  Yirtue  crushed,  and  vice  triumphant ;  the  good 
man  perishing  by  violence,  and  his  murderer,  though  driven 
from  his  home,  and  exiled  from  the  place  where  the  visible 
symbol  of  the  divine  presence  dwelt,  yet  spared  to  found 
cities,  and  become  the  father  of  a  numerous  and  flourishing 
posterity.  If  there  is  no  hereafter,  if  death  is  the  annihila- 
tion of  our  being,  what  a  spectacle  would  this  be  to  contem- 
plate !  The  omnipotent  judge  punishing  goodness,  and 
rewarding  crime !  A  righteous  man  perishing,  because  he 
had  acted  in  a  manner  conformable  to  the  will  of  God ! 
Surely,  the  facts  contained  in  this  record  very  distinctly 
point  to  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments.  The 
writer  to  the  Hebrews  intimates  as  much,  when  he  says  of 
Abel,  that  "  he  being  dead,  yet  speaketh."*  Of  what  does 
he  speak  ?  Of  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  the  retribu- 
tions of  another  world.  Yery  respectable  commentators  con- 
cur in  this  view  of  the  transaction.  Dean  Gravesf  says : 
"  We  cannot  conceive,  that  the  circumstances  attending  this 
first  infliction  of  death  upon  man,  could  have  been  ordered 
by  providence  so  as  to  testify  more  plainly  this  great  truth  of 
a  future  state  of  recompense,  had  this  been  the  sole  purpose 
for  which  they  were  designed.  To  conceive,  that  a  just  and 
merciful  God  should  openly  approve  the  sacrifice  of  Abel, 
and  yet  permit  him,  in  consequence  of  that  very  action,  to 

*  Heb.  xi.  4.  t  On  the  Pent.  Pt.  3.  Lect.  4. 


LAWS   OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  289 

Buffer  a  cruel  deatli,  which  put  a  final  period  to  his  existence ; 
while  his  murderer,  whom  the  same  God  openly  condemned, 
was  yet  permitted  to  live  ;  all  this  is  so  monstrous,  so  contra- 
dictory to  the  divine  attributes,  as  to  prove,  beyond  possibility 
of  doubt,  that  this  event  was  permitted  to  take  place,  partly 
at  least,  in  order  to  show,  that  death  was  not  a  final  extinc- 
tion of  being,  but  on  the  contrary,  a  pa&sage  from  this  world 
to  another,  where  the  righteous  should  be  recompensed  f^tr 
their  adherence  to  the  will  of  their  heavenly  father,  in  oppo- 
sition to  suffering  and  death,  by  a  sure  and  eternal  reward." 
Fagius*  observes :  "  His  blood  poured  forth  witnesses  that 
you  put  him  to  death.  Let  this  comfort  the  righteous,  who 
are  slain  for  their  justice,  that  they  still  live  with  God,  and 
are  his  chief  care."  Taylorf  says :  "  The  patriarchs  before 
and  after  Job,  and  the  Israelites  before  Christ,  had  a  notion 
of  a  future  state.  By  sacrifices  was  plainly  shown,  that  a 
way  was  open  to  the  divine  favor  and  acceptance ;  and  the 
favor  of  God  imports  happiness ;  which  to  Abel,  who  was  for 
that  very  reason,  because  he  was  accepted  of  God,  unjustly 
slain,  could  be  only  in  a  future  state ;  and  dying  on  account 
of  that  faith,  '  he  speaketh '  an  invisible  future  state  of  re- 
ward." Doddridge:}:  also  interprets  the  words  "he  being 
dead  yet  speaketh,"  as  referring  to  the  testimony  borne  by 
his  story  to  a  future  state.  So  Philo  Judaus  :§  "  Abel, 
though  cut  off,  lives.  *  *  *  This  the  divine  oracle  attests, 
for  it  expressly  declares,  he  cries  out  against  the  criminal  by 
whom  he  suffered  :  but  if  he  no  longer  existed,  how  could  he 
thus  cry  out  ?  Thus  the  wise  man,  who  appears  deprived  of 
this  mortal  life,  lives  an  immortal  one." 

In  the  fifth  chapter  of  Genesis,  we  have  an  account  of  the 
translation  of  the  patriarch  Enoch :  "  And  Enoch  walked 
with  God  ;  and  he  was  not ;  for  God  took  him."!  I^  there 
is  no  future  life,  in  which  virtue  receives  its  appropriate 

*  Cited  by  Poole  in  loc.  f  Scheme  of  Scrip.  Div.  c.  2A, 

t  Fam.  Exp.  on  Heb.  xi.  4.  §  OpP  I  •  127.  ||  V.  24. 

19 


290  COMMENTAEIES   ON   THE 

reward,  what  a  picture  does  the  sacred  historian  here  offer  us 
of  the  God  of  the  Hebrews !  A  man,  illustrious  beyond  all 
his  contemporaries  for  piety,  is  cut  off  in  the  midst  of  his 
days  from  all  the  honors  and  enjoyments  of  life,  and  re- 
warded with  annihilation  !  What  heart  but  must  recoil  from 
a  being,  who  recompenses  the  devotion  of  his  servants  with 
the  extinction  of  their  being  ?  Who  can  believe  that  Moses 
teaches  a  doctrine  so  abhorrent  both  to  reason  and  revela- 
tion ?  This  record  of  the  translation  of  Enoch,  so  far  from 
being  a  mere  hint  of  another  life,  seems  to  me  almost  as 
plain  a  revelation  of  it,  as  the  declaration  of  the  Lord  of  life 
himself,  "  The  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in 
the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth."* 
Warburton,f  to  evade  the  force  of  this  scripture,  says,  that 
the  fact  that  Enoch  walked  with  God,  and  was  not,  because 
God  took  him,  is  related  with  a  studied  obscurity  and  brev- 
ity, as  if  to  conceal  the  idea  of  another  life.  To  this  Dr. 
Graves:}:  well  replies,  that  "  it  is  related  in  exactly  the  same 
style  and  manner  as  every  other  fact  in  this  part  of  the 
patriarchal  history  ;  and  it  is  so  plain,  that  the  only  possible 
way  of  concealing  or  obscuring  the  information  it  contains, 
would  be  entirely  to  suppress  the  fact.  Enough  is  told  to 
justify  the  observation  of  the  apostle,  "  By  faith  Enoch  was 
translated,  that  he  should  not  see  death ;  and  was  not  found 
"because  God  had  translated  him ;  for  before  his  translation, 
he  had  this  testimony,  that  he  pleased  God."§ 

A  little  farther  on  in  the  sacred  narrative,!  we  come  to 
the  great  trial  of  Abraham's  faith  in  the  command  to  offer  up 
his  son  Isaac.  We  have  the  explicit  testimony  of  St.  Paul,^ 
that  he  did  this  in  the  belief,  that  God  would  raise  him  from 
the  dead.  Could  such  a  thought  have  occurred  to  a  mind  in 
utter  darkness  as  to  a  future  state,  and  to  which  death  sug 

*  John  V.  28,  39.     f  Div.  Leg.  B.  5,  S.  5.     t  On  the  Pent.  Pt.  3,  Lect.  4. 
i  Heb.  xi.  5  1|  Gen.  xxu.  1[  Heb.  xi.  19. 


LAWS   OF  THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  291 

gested  no  other  idea,  than  that  of  an  eternal  sleep  ?  It  is  im- 
possible. 

That  Abraham  and  the  other  patriarchs,  contrary  to  the 
theory  of  Bishop  Warburton,  were  influenced  in  their  con- 
duct by  the  prospect  of  a  future  life,  is  a  truth  which 
rests  for  support  on  inspired  authority.  "  By  faith,"  says 
the  author  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  •'  Abraham  so- 
journed in  the  land  of  promise,  as  in  a  strange  country, 
dwelling  in  tabernacles  with  Isaac  and  Jacob,  the  heirs  with 
him  of  the  same  promise.  For  he  looked  for  a  city  which 
hath  foundations,  whose  builder  and  maker  is  God."*  Again, 
speaking  of  the  patriarchs  in  general,  the  same  writer  says : 
"  These  all  died  in  faith,  not  having  received  the  promises, 
but  having  seen  them  afar  off,  and  were  persuaded  of  them, 
and  embraced  them,  and  confessed  that  they  were  strangers 
and  pilgrims  on  the  earth.  For  they  that  say  such  things 
declare  plainly,  that  they  seek  a  country.  And  truly,  if  they 
had  been  mindful  of  that  country  from  which  they  came  out, 
they  might  have  had  opportunity  to  have  returned.  But 
now  they  desire  a  better  country,  that  is  an  heavenly :  where- 
fore God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their  God  ;  for  he  hath 
prepared  for  them  a  city."f 

"When  God  revealed  himself  to  Moses  in  the  burning  bush, 
it  was  in  these  words :  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  God 
of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,":}:  According  to  the  autho- 
ritative interpretation  of  our  Savior,§  the  doctrine  not  only 
of  a  future  life,  but  even  of  a  resurrection  from  the  dead,  is 
taught  in  this  passage.  It  must,  therefore,  unless  the  divine 
expounder  has  put  an  erroneous  construction  upon  it,  be  re- 
garded as  containing  something  more  than  a  mere  hint  of 
another  life.     It  is  a  distinct  revelation  of  it. 

Moses  is  commonly  supposed  to  have  been  heir  apparent 
to  the  crown  of  Egypt.  Whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the 
highest  dignities  below  the  throne  were  open  to  his  ambition; 

*  Heb.  xi.  9,  10.      f  Heb.  xi.  13-16.      J  Ex.  iii.  6.      §  Mat  ix.iL  21,  32. 


292  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

and  'boundless  wealth,  splendor,  and  luxury  were  his  by  pre- 
scriptive right.  All  this  he  renounced  for  reproach,  exile, 
poverty,  toil,  privation,  ingratitude,  and  death.  Wherefore 
pursue  a  course,  so  irrational  in  the  world's  esteem,  and  so 
contradictory  to  its  most  cherished  maxims  ?  Because,  ac- 
cording to  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews,*  he  had  respect  to 
rewards  unappreciated  in  the  world's  philosophy.  Either, 
therefore,  Bishop  Warburton  is  mistaken,  or  St.  Paul  is  ;  for 
they  put  forth  diametrically  opposite  opinions  on  the  question 
whether  or  not  the  Israelites  were  ever  actuated  by  the  pros- 
pect of  future  rewards  and  punishments, — the  former  teach- 
ing that  they  were  not,  the  latter  that  they  were. 

Balaam  was  undoubtedly  favored  with  a  portion  of  the  true 
prophetic  spirit.  His  prayer  "  let  me  die  the  death  of  the 
righteous,  and  let  my  last  end  be  like  his,"  conveys  a  distinct 
allusion  to  the  rewards  of  a  future  state  of  being.f  "  It  im- 
ports," observes  Dr.  Graves,:}:  "  a  wish  to  die  the  death  of 
the  righteous,  in  order  to  enjoy  the  happiness  of  another  life, 
which  the  righteous  only  can  share."  If  anything  could 
establish  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation,  it  would  be 
the  unnatural  and  jejune  construction  which  Warburton  is 
compelled  to  put  upon  the  passage.  According  to  him,  the 
prayer  means,  "  Let  me  die  in  a  mature  old  age,  after  a  life 
of  health  and  peace,  with  all  my  posterity  flourishing  about 
me ;  as  was  the  lot  of  the  righteous  observers  of  the  law."§ 
Could  any  thing  be  more  forced  and  frigid  ? 

The  Mosaic  statute,  repeated  not  less  than  four  times  in 
the  Pentatauch,!  prohibiting  all  recourse  to  wizards,  witches, 
necromancers,  and  the  like,  viewed  in  connexion  with  the 
continuance  of  the  superstition  in  spite  of  the  rigorous 
enforcement  of  the  prohibition,  and  especially  in  connexion 
with  Saul's  application  to  the  witch  of  Endor  to  bring  up 

♦  Heb.  xi.  26.  f  Num.  xxlii.  10.         %  On  the  Pent.  Pt.  3.  L 

2  Div.  Leg.  B.  5.       1|  Lev.  xix.  31 ;  xx.  6,  27.  Deut.  xviii.  11. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  293 

Samuel  from  the  dead,*  affords  an  incontestible  proof,  not 
only  that  the  doctrine  of  the  separate  existence  of  the  soul 
after  the  dissolution  of  the  body  formed  a  part  of  the  popular 
creed  of  the  Jewish  nation,  but  also  that  the  abuse  of  the 
doctrine  constituted  a  prominent  feature  of  the  popular  super- 
stition. 

The  solemn  Hebrew  adjuration,  which  we  find  in  1  Sara. 
25  :  6,  and  other  places  of  the  Old  Testament, — "  As  Jeho- 
vah liveth  and  as  thy  soul  liveth,"  contains  a  hint  of  immor- 
tality, by  no  means  equivocal.  "Why  this  remarkable  con- 
junction of  terms  ?  Is  it  accidental  ?  Is  it  rhetorical  merely  ? 
Is  it  not  rather  intimated,  in  this  wonderful  association  of  the 
human  spirit  with  the  father  of  spirits,  that  as  the  one  lives, 
so  shall  the  other  ?  The  being  of  the  one  is  recognised  as  the 
pledge  of  the  being  of  the  other.  In  this  language  the  divine 
spirit  is  so  intimately  connected  with  the  human  spirit,  that 
the  eternal  existence  of  the  former  is  made  the  immoveable 
ground  of  the  eternal  blessedness  of  the  latter. 

By  the  inspired  teachers  who  succeeded  Moses,  and  whose 
writings  form  a  part  of  the  sacred  volume,  the  doctrine  of 
another  life  was  developed  with  continually  increasing  clear- 
ness and  force.  From  the  mind  of  David,  the  royal  prophet 
and  sweet  singer  of  Israel,  the  contemplation  of  the  future 
state  of  retribution  seems  hardly  ever  to  have  been  absent. 
Let  us  glance  at  a  few  of  the  places  in  his  pious  and  inspired 
hymns,  in  which  this  idea  appears  conspicuous. 

In  the  16th  Psalm,f  David  uses  these  glowing  expres- 
sions : — 

"  I  have  set  the  Lord  always  before  me ;  because  he  is  at 
my  right  hand,  I  shall  not  be  moved.  Therefore  my  heart  is 
glad,  and  my  glory  rejoiceth  :  my  flesh  also  shall  rest  in  hope. 
For  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell ;  neither  wilt  thou 
suffer  thy  Holy  One  to  see  corruption.     Thou  wilt  show  me 

*  1  Sam.  xxviii.  f  Vv.  8-11. 


294:  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

the  path  of  life:  in  thj  presence  is  fulness  of  joy:  at  thy 
right  hand  there  are  pleasures  for  evermore." 

It  is  true  that  the  psalmist  here  speaks  in  the  person  of  the 
Messiah,  and  the  words,  "  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thy  holy 
one  to  see  corruption,"  are  explained  by  Peter*  as  applicable 
to  him  alone.  Yet,  without  doubt,  he  expresses  his  own  full 
assurance  of  a  future  state,  in  which  eartbly  sorrow  shall  ter- 
minate in  heavenly  joy,  and  momentary  pain  shall  be  rewarded 
with  everlasting  felicity.f 

In  the  psalm  immediately  succeeding  to  this,:}:  the  royal 
poet  expresses  himself  thus : — "  deliver  my  soul  from  the 
wicked,  which  is  thy  sword :  From  men  which  are  thy  hand, 
O  Lord,  from  men  of  the  world,  which  have  their  portion  in 
this  life,  and  whose  belly  thou  fillest  with  thy  hid  treasure : 
they  are  full  of  children,  and  leave  the  rest  of  their  substance 
to  their  babes.  As  for  me,  I  will  behold  thy  face  in  right- 
eousness :  I  shall  be  satisfied,  when  I  awake,  with  thy  like- 
ness." Here  the  psalmist  draws  an  express  contrast  between 
the  gross  earthly  pleasures  of  the  men  of  the  world  and  the 
pure  celestial  happiness  of  the  righteous  in  another  life.  In 
opposition  to  those  who  have  "  their  portion  in  this  life,  and 
whose  belly  is  filled  with  hid  treasure,"  he  places  all  his  feli- 
city in  the  vision  of  God,  anticipates  the  hour  when  he  shall 
awake  (i.  e.  from  death  to  life)  in  the  divine  likeness,  and  ex- 
presses his  assured  confidence,  that  then  he  shall  be  satisfied 
with  the  fulness  of  joy,  yea,  with  the  exceeding  abundance  of 
eternal  glory .§ 

In  psalm  21 :  1,  the  writer  says,  "  Into  thy  hands  do  I  yield 
up  my  SPIRIT,  for  thou  hast  redeemed  [purchased]  me,  O  Lord 
God  of  truth."  These  expressions  represent  death  as  the  giv- 
ing up  of  something  that  goes  away  at  the  bodily  dissolution. 
Blind  must  he  be,  who,  in  such  expressions,  sees  only  nature, 
or,  as  the  naturalist  would  say,  a  debt  due  to  nature,  and  no- 
thing of  grace,  nothing  of  covenant,  nothing  of  the  redemp- 

*  Acts  ii.        f  See  Home  in  loc.        J  xvii.  13-15.        3  Ilorno  in  loc. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBEEWS,  295 

tion  and  inmiortalitj  of  the  soul.  The  passage  contains 
clearly  the  idea  of  restoration,  or  the  paying  back  of  a  deposit, 
placed  in  the  hands  of  Jehovah, 

The  forty-ninth  psalm  is  a  glorious  testimony  to  the  doc- 
trine of  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments.  The 
psalmist  commences  with  a  solemn  call  to  all  the  inhabitants 
of  the  world  to  give  ear  to  a  lesson  of  divine  wisdom.  The 
lesson  is  the  folly  of  trusting  in  riches,  for  of  wealthy  trans- 
gressors he  says:*  "This  their  way  is  their  folly:  yet  their 
posterity  approve  their  sayings.  Like  sheep  they  are  laid  iu 
the  grave ;  death  shall  feed  on  them ;  and  the  upright  shall 
have  dominion  over  them  in  the  morning ;  and  their  beauty 
shall  consume  in  the  grave  from  their  dwelling.  But  God 
will  redeem  my  soul  from  the  power  of  the  grave  ;  for  he 
shall  receive  me."  Here  we  have  a  contrast  between  sinners 
who  trust  in  their  wealth  and  the  upright.  Both  are,  indeed, 
subject  to  the  power  of  death  ;  both  shall  be  laid  in  the  grave  ; 
both  shall  be  re-animated  and  come  forth  out  of  the  dust; 
but  the  upright  shall  have  dominion  over  the  wicked  in  the 
morning,  Graves,f  Patrick,:}:  and  Horne§  interpret  "  the 
morning"  here  as  denoting  the  resurrection.  Home's  para- 
phrase of  the  fourteenth  verse  is  strikingly  beautiful :  "  The 
high  and  mighty  ones  of  the  earth,  who  cause  people  to  fear, 
and  nations  to  tremble  around  them,  must  one  day  crowd  the 
grave ;  in  multitude  and  impotence,  though  not  in  innocence, 
resembling  sheep  driven  and  confined  by  the  butcher  in  his 
house  of  slaughter.  There  death,  that  ravening  wolf,  shall 
feed  sweetly  on  them,  and  devour  his  long  expected  prey  in 
silence  and  darkness,  until  the  glorious  morning  of  the  resur- 
rection dawn ;  when  the  once  oppressed  and  afflicted  righteous, 
risen  from  the  dead,  and  sitting  with  their  Lord  in  judgment, 
shall  have  dominion  over  their  cruel  and  insulting  enemies ; 
whose  faded  beauty,  withered  strength,  and  departed  glory, 

♦  Vv.  13-15.       t  On  the  Pent.  Pt.  3,  Lect.  4.      |  In  loc.       §  In  loc 


296  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

shall  display  to  men  and  angels  the  vanity  of  that  confidence, 
which  is  not  placed  in  God."* 

The  main  sentiment  of  the  psalm  which  we  have  just  been 
considering,  is  brought  out  with  still  greater  distinctness  in 
the  seventy -third.  The  writer  describes  himself  as  brought 
into  a  state  of  the  most  anxious  per])lexity  by  a  view  of  the 
worldly  prosperit}^  of  tlie  wicked ;  but  the  darkness,  which 
for  a  time  clouded  his  mind,  was  scattered  by  the  light  of  re- 
ligion, revealing  the  final  doom  of  the  ungodly  and  the  future 
glory  and  felicity  of  the  pious.  He  thus  describes  both  the 
disease  and  the  remedy  :f  "  Verily  I  have  cleansed  my 
heart  in  vain,  and  washed  my  hands  «in  innocency.  For  all 
the  day  long  have  I  been  plagued,  and  chastened  every  morn- 
ing. If  [  say  I  will  speak  thus ;  behold,  I  should  ofiend 
against  the  generation  of  thy  children.  When  I  thought  to 
know  this,  it  was  too  painful  for  me ;  until  I  went  into  the 
sanctuary  of  God  ;  then  understood  I  their  end.  Surely  thou 
didst  set  them  in  slippery  places :  thou  castedst  them  down 
into  destruction.  How  are  they  brought  into  desolation,  as 
in  a  moment!  thej'^  are  utterly  consumed  with  terrors.  As  a 
dream  when  one  awaketh ;  so,  O  Lord,  when  thou  awakest, 
thou  shalt  despise  their  image.  Thus  my  heart  was  grieved, 
and  I  was  pricked  in  my  reins.  So  foolish  was  I,  and  igno- 
rant ;  I  was  as  a  beast  before  thee.  Nevertheless  I  am  con- 
tinually with  thee :  thou  hast  holden  me  by  my  right  hand. 
Tliou  shalt  guide  me  with  thy  counsel,  and  afterward  receive 
me  to  glory.  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee  ?  and  there  is 
none  upon  earth  that  I  desire  besides  thee.  My  flesh  and  my 
heart  faileth :  but  God  is  the  strength  of  my  heart,  and  my 
portion  for  ever."     How  clear  is  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life 

*  "Warburton  interprets  'in  the  morning;.*  to  mean,  'by  the  judgment 
of  the  law,  which  was  administered  in  the  morning  hours.'  What  straita 
is  a  system  driven  to,  to  require  such  an  interpretation!"  Graves  on 
the  Pent. 

t  Vv.  ]3-26. 


LAWS   OF  THE  ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  297 

in  these  verses  !  How  strong  the  psalmist's  hope  of  a  personal 
enjoyment  of  its  blessedness !  With  what  rapture  and  exult- 
ation does  he  dwell  upon  the  blissful  anticipation ! 

The  list  of  references  to  another  life  in  the  book  of  Psalms 
might  be  greatly  extended  ;  but  let  these  instances  suffice. 
That  Solomon,  the  pride  of  his  nation  and  wonder  of  the 
world  for  wisdom,  was  acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  retri- 
bution in  a  future  state,  and  that  he  held  it  to  be  the  strongest 
foundation  and  sanction  of  virtue,  the  inspired  productions  of 
his  pen  afford  decisive  proof.  In  Proverbs  4 :  18,  he  com- 
pares "the  path  of  the  just"  to  "the  shining  light,  that 
shineth  more  and  more  unto  the  perfect  day."  Patrick, 
Poole,  Doddridge,  and  Graves  concur  in  interpreting  these 
words  as  a  beautiful  description  of  the  reward  of  virtue,  in- 
creasing from  day  to  day,  till  it  terminates  in  endless  glory. 
In  the  same  book  (8  :  35,  36)  wisdom  is  represented  as  saying, 
"  "Whoso  findeth  me  findeth  life,"  and.  "  All  the}^  that  hate  me 
love  death."  Eternal  life  and  eternal  death  are  here,  plainly, 
intended.  The  same  must  be  understood  in  chap.  12 :  28, 
where  we  are  told,  that  "  in  the  way  of  righteousness  is  life, 
and  in  the  pathway  thereof  there  is  no  death ;"  and  in  chap. 
14 :  27,  where  it  is  said,  that  "  the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  a  foun- 
tain of  life,  to  depart  from  the  snares  of  death."  In  these 
places,  it  is  impossible  to  interpret  the  words  life  and  death 
otherwise  than  as  appertaining  to  a  future  state  of  being, 
because  the  wicked  enjoy  the  present  life  as  well  as  the  right- 
eous, and  the  righteous  are  subject  to  temporal  death  not  less 
than  the  wicked.  Still  clearer,  if  possible,  is  the  doctrine  of 
future  retribution  in  the  thirty -second  verse  of  this  chapter : 
"The  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his  wickedness;  but  the 
righteous  hath  hope  in  his  death."  If  death  is  the  annihila- 
tion of  our  being,  the  righteous  are  as  much  driven  away  as 
the  wicked ;  and  neither  can  have  any  well  grounded  hope  in 
the  mortal  struggle.  It  is  true,  that  Warburton  interprets  the 
expression,  "  the  righteous  hath  hope  in  his  death,"  as  mean 


298  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

ing,  "  he  hath  hope,  that  he  shall  be  delivered  froiL  the  most 
imminent  dangers."  But,  so  long  as  there  is  any  groimd 
whatever  for  the  hope  of  escape  from  such  perils,  this  feeling, 
as  far  as  my  observation  has  extended,  is  as  strong  in  the 
wicked  as  it  is  in  the  righteous.  Besides,  this  interpretation 
does  violence  to  the  language  of  the  sacred  writer.  Hope  in 
death  is  surely  not  the  same  thing  as  the  hope  of  escape  from 
death.  The  latter  must  rest  upon  some  probable,  or  at  least 
possible,  grounds  of  escape ;  the  former  may  and  does  exist 
in  full  strength,  after  all  such  grounds  have  been  removed. 

Passing  now  from  the  book  of  Proverbs  to  that  of  Eccle- 
siastes,  if  in  the  former  we  meet  with  only  scattered  and  inci- 
dental notices  of  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution,  in  the  lat- 
ter we  shall  find  this  doctrine  entering  into  the  very  substance 
of  the  writing,  and  constituting  in  fact  its  leading  dogma. 
"  The  royal  preacher  expatiates  on  the  transitory  condition  of 
mankind,  if  considered  as  confined  to  the  present  state  of 
existence;  the  vanity  and  vexation  of  spirit  attending  all 
present  human  enjoyment;  and  the  apparent  inequality  of 
providence,  by  which  there  appears  one  event  to  the  right- 
eous and  the  wicked.  But  in  all  the  difiiculties  and  perplex- 
ities, all  the  vanity  and  vexation  of  spirit,  which  this  partial 
view  of  human  nature  implies,  the  royal  preacher  brings 
forward  the  prospect  of  a  future  life  and  just  retribution,  as 
the  solution  and  the  remedy,  the  consolation  and  the  cure."* 
And  he  closes  the  whole  discussion  with  these  memorable 
words,  intended  to  imprint  upon  the  heart  of  his  readers  the 
great  truth,  which  it  had  been  his  principal  aim  to  unfold 
and  enforce  :t  "  Let  us  hear  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  mat- 
ter :  Fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments :  for  this  is  the 
whole  duty  of  man.  For  God  shall  bring  every  work  into 
judgment,  with  every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or 
wliether  it  be  evil." 

Miracle  was  superadded  to  verbal  instruction  to  confirm 

*  Graves  on  the  Pent.  Pt.  3,  Lect.  4.  f  Eccl.  xii.  13,  14. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBEITWS.  299 

the  doctrine  of  the  soul's  continued  existence  after  the  death 
of  the  body,  and  of  its  capability  of  a  blessed  immortality. 
Three  instances  occurred  of  an  actual  resurrection  from  the 
dead,  produced  by  the  miraculous  power  of  Elijah  and  Elislia, 
prophets  of  tlie  most  high  God, — viz.  the  son  of  the  widow  of 
Zarephath,*  the  son  of  the  Shunaraite  woman,f  and  the  man 
let  down  into  the  sepulchre  of  Elisha.:}:  "These  miracles, 
combined  with  others  of  a  different  kind  wrought  by  the 
same  prophets,  which  must  have  excited  general  attention, 
could  not  fail  of  impressing  extensively  and  deeply  on  the 
Jewish  nation  the  opinion  of  the  soul's  surviving  death,  and 
being  capable  of  a  blessed  immortality ."§  But  a  miracle  far 
more  remarkable  and  illustrious,  and  tending  more  directly 
and  powerfully  to  confirm  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  of  ex- 
istence, we  have  in  the  translation  of  Elijah. ||  "And  it  came 
to  pass,  as  they^  still  went  on,  and  talked,  behold,  there  ap- 
peared a  chariot  of  fire,  and  horses  of  fire,  and  parted  them 
both  asunder ;  and  Elijah  went  up  by  a  whirlwind  into  hea- 
ven. And  Elisha  saw  it,  and  he  cried.  My  father,  my  father! 
the  chariot  of  Israel  and  the  horsemen  thereof !  And  he  saw 
him  no  more."  With  such  a  record  as  this  before  him,  how 
was  it  possible  for  a  man  of  Warburton's  genius,  a  doctor  of 
divinity  and  a  bishop  in  the  established  church  of  England, 
to  avow  the  opinion  that  the  Jews,  from  Moses  to  the  captiv- 
ivity,  "  had  not  even  the  idea  of  a  future  state,"*^*  and  never 
"  expressed  the  least  hope  or  fear  or  common  curiosity  con- 
cerning it?"ff 

A  very  few  citations  from  the  subsequent  prophets  must 
close  this  already  too  extended  note.  In  the  fourteenth 
chapter  of  Isaiah,  in  a  bold  and  sublime  scen'c  represent- 
ation, the  invisible  world  is  uncovered,  and  we  see  and  hear 

*  1  Kings  xvii.  17-23.        f  2  Kings  iv.  33-36.         J  2  Kings  xiii.  21. 
§  Graves  on  the  Pent.  Pt.  3,  Lect.  4.  ||  2  Kings  ii.  11,  12. 

T[  Viz.  Elijah  and  Elisha.  **  Div.  Leg.  vol.  4,  p.  344. 

ft  Div.  Leg.  B.  5,  S.  5. 


300  COMMEKTARIES   ON   THE 

what  is  transacting  there.  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  fallen  tyrant 
of  Babylon,  descends  to  the  lower  regions,  whose  inhabitants, 
aroused  by  his  approach,  come  forth  to  meet  him  :*  "  Hell 
from  beneath  is  moved  for  thee  to  meet  thee  at  thy  coming : 
it  stirreth  up  the  dead  for  thee,  even  all  the  chief  ones  of  the 
earth :  it  hath  raised  up  from  their  thrones  all  the  kings  of 
the  nations.  All  they  shall  speak  and  say  unto  thee.  Art 
thou  also  become  weak  as  we  ?  Art  thou  become  like  unto 
us  ?"  Does  not  this  whole  representation  prove,  that  the  idea 
of  a  state  of  future  retribution  was  familiar  to  the  Jewish 
mind  in  the  age  of  this  prophet  ? 

In  his  twenty-sixth  chapter,  Isaiah,  celebrating  the  faith- 
fulness of  God  to  his  people,  says  :f  "  Thy  dead  men  shall 
live,  together  with  my  dead  body  shall  they  rise.  Awake 
and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  dust :  for  thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of 
herbs,  and  the  earth  shall  cast  out  the  dead."  The  interpret- 
ation of  this  passage  is  much  disputed.  Yarious  senses  are 
assigned  to  it  by  the  commentators.  Into  these  controversies 
I  do  not  enter ;  nor  is  it  needful  that  I  should  ;  for,  whatever 
the  specific  reference  of  the  prophet  may  be,  the  passage  is  a 
clear  proof,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  of  the  dead 
was  current  among  the  Jews  at  the  time  when  it  was  penned. 

Passing  by  numerous  other  allusions  to  a  future  state,  in 
this  sublime  and  evangelic  prophet,  we  come  to  his  fifty- 
seventh  chapter,  "  in  which  he  describes,  in  terms  the  most 
clear  and  impressive,  that  strict  retribution,  by  which  divine 
justice  will  correct  all  the  inequalities  of  the  present  life,  and 
render  to  every  man  according  to  his  works  :":{:  "  The  right- 
eous perisheth,  and  no  man  layeth  it  to  heart :  and  merciful 
men  are  taken  away,  none  considering  that  the  righteous  is 
taken  away  from  the  evil  to  come.  He  shall  enter  into 
peace :  they  shall  rest  in  their  beds,  each  one  walking  in  his 
uprightness."§ 

♦  Vv.  9,  10.  ■}•  V.  19. 

X  Giaves  <n  the  Pent.  Pt.  3,  Lect.  4.  ^  Vv.  1,  2. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  301 

1  pass  the  references  to  a  future  state  of  rewarJs  and  pun- 
ishments contained  in  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  minor 
prophets,  though  much  might  be  gleaned  from  these  writers, 
which  would  have  a  strong  bearing  upon  the  present  discus- 
sion ;  and  close  with  the  sublime  and  awful  description  of 
the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord,  the  day  of  final  retri- 
bution, which  we  find  in  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  :*  "  I  be- 
held till  the  thrones  were  cast  down,  and  the  Ancient  of  days 
did  sit,  whose  garment  was  white  as  snow,  and  the  hair  of 
his  head  like  the  pure  wool :  his  throne  was  like  the  fiery 
flame,  and  his  wheels  as  burning  fire.  A  fiery  stream  issued 
and  came  forth  from  before  him :  thousand  thousands  minis- 
tered unto  him,  and  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  stood 
before  him :  the  judgment  was  set,  and  the  books  were 
opened.  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and  behold  one  like  the 
Son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to  the 
Ancient  of  days,  and  they  brought  him  near  before  him. 
And  there  was  given  him  dominion  and  glory,  and  a  king- 
dom, that  all  people,  nations,  and  languages,  should  serve 
him  :  his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  dominion,  which  shall 
not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom,  that  which  shall  not  be 
destroyed."  "  And  at  that  time  shall  Michael  stand  up,  the 
great  prince  which  standeth  for  the  children  of  thy  people : 
and  there  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble,  such  as  never  was  since 
there  was  a  nation  even  to  that  same  time :  and  at  that  time 
thy  people  shall  be  delivered,  every  one  that  shall  be  found 
written  in  the  book.  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the 
dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and 
some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.  And  they  that  be 
wise,  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firmament ;  and 
they  that  turn  many  to  righteousness,  as  the  stars  for  ever 
and  ever." 

*  vii.  9, 10,  13,  14.    xii.  1-3. 


802  COMMENTAEIES   ON  THE 


CHAPTER  yn. 


Influenoe  of  the  Laws  and  Writings  of  Moses  on  the  subsequent 
Civilisation  of  the  World. 


A  WORK  like  the  Pentateuch,  distinguished  for  its  literary 
merit,  its  theology,  its  ethics,  and  the  preeminent  excellence 
of  its  system  of  civil  institutions,  could  not  fail  to  exert  a 
wide  and  powerful  influence  on  the  opinions  and  practices  of 
mankind.  To  trace  and  unfold  this  influence,  as  we  find  it 
modifying  the  religion,  the  literature,  the  philosophy,  and 
the  legislation  of  the  world,  since  the  age  of  Moses,  is  the 
purpose  of  the  present  chapter.  As,  however,  it  is  not  al- 
ways easy  to  distinguish  between  the  efiect  of  the  Pentateuch 
and  of  the  other  inspired  writings,  which  form  the  canon  ol 
the  Old  Testament,  I  shall  not  be  particularly  studious  of 
such  discriminations,  but  shall  treat  of  the  influence  gene- 
rally of  the  Hebrew  scriptures ;  never  forgetting,  howe\'er, 
that  the  chief  place,  in  such  a  review,  is  due  to  the  books  of 
Moses. 

Moses  made  no  secret  of  the  high  estimate,  which  he 
placed  upon  his  labors,  as  a  lawgiver.  "  What  nation  is 
there  so  great,  that  hath  statutes  and  judgments  so  righteous 
as  all  this  law,  which  I  set  before  you  this  day  ?"*  is  the  confi- 
dent tone,  in  which  he  claims  the  obedience  of  his  country 

•  Deut  iv.  8. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  303 

men  and  the  admiration  of  the  world.  It  is  a  challenge 
which  might  still  be  made  in  reference  to  the  greater  part  of 
the  nations  of  the  earth.  Moses  seems  to  have  been  im- 
pressed with  the  conviction,  that  his  legislation  was  destined 
to  exert  a  commanding  influence  on  the  progress  of  govern- 
ment and  civilization.  He  evidently  anticipated,  that  his 
laws  would  become  known,  and  would  be  imitated,  by  other 
nations  ;  and,  ever  upon  the  alert  for  motives  to  enforce  the 
observance  of  them  upon  his  own  countrymen,  he  employs 
this  expectation  as  an  argument  to  that  end.  "  Keep,  there- 
fore, and  do  them  (he  says),  for  this  is  your  wisdom  and  your 
understanding  in  the  sight  of  the  nations,  which  shall  hear  of 
these  statutes,  and  say,  surely  this  great  nation  is  a  wise  and 
understanding  people."* 

The  event  was  in  harmony  with  the  anticipation.  Hardly 
any  historical  fact  rests  upon  a  more  solid  foundation  than 
that  the  most  celebrated  nations  and  lawgivers  of  antiquity 
borrowed  many  of  their  wisest  institutions  from  the  laws  of 
Moses.  We  have  plain  and  certain  proofs,  that  these  laws 
were  powerfully  felt  in  modifying  the  religious  sentiments, 
the  philosophical  opinions,  the  literary  labors,  the  political 
maxims,  the  civil  institutions,  and  the  moral  judgments  and 
practices  of  mankind.  The  exhibition  of  these  proofs  is  the 
labor  now  in  hand. 

The  reader's  attention  is  here,  in  a  preliminary  way,  called 
to  the  geographical  position  of  the  country  of  the  Hebrews, 
in  its  relations  to  the  other  countries  of  the  eastern  hemi- 
sphere. A  glance  at  the  map  shows  how  admirably  it  was 
situated  for  becoming  a  central  point  of  illumination,  a  foun- 
tain whence  streams  of  knowledge  might  flow  to  a  benighted 
world.  The  divine  voice  itself,  in  describing  the  boundaries 
of  the  promised  land,  says :  "  From  the  wilderness  and  Le- 
banon, from  the  river,  the  river  Euphrates,  even  unto  the 
uttermost  sea,  shall  your  coast  be."t    The  western  border  of 

*  Deut.  iv.  6.  t  I^eut  xi.  24. 


304  COMMENTARIES    O^   THE 

the  Hebrews  was  the  Mediterranean  sea,  by  means  of  whose 
waters  there  was  an  easy  access  to  the  entire  soutliern  coast 
of  Europe  and  northern  coast  of  Africa.  Their  eastern  border 
was  the  Euphrates,  which,  discharging  itself  into  the  Indian 
ocean,  opened  a  way  to  the  whole  southern  shore  of  Asia, 
In  this  commanding  position,  this  city  set  on  a  hill,  Jehovah, 
fixing  the  abode  of  his  chosen  people,  set  up  a  school  for  the 
instruction  of  the  nations.  Judea,  enjoying  the  sacred  light 
of  revelation,  became  the  great  depository  of  religious,  moral, 
and  political  knowledge  for  the  world.  And  it  was  so  central, 
and  so  easy  of  access,  that  light  could  thence  be  most  readily 
made  to  radiate  to  every  region  of  the  globe.* 

That  the  Hebrew  institutions  were  not  designed  for  the  ex- 
clusive benefit  of  the  Hebrew  people,  we  know  from  the 
express  declarations  of  holy  writ.  See  in  confirmation  of 
this  Ex.  9  :  16.  15  :  14 ;  Num.  14  :  13-21 ;  Deut.  4  :  6-8. 
28  :  10.  The  prayer  of  Solomon  at  the  dedication  of  the 
temple  is  particularly  pertinent  here.  Therein  that  illustrious 
monarch  prays,  that  "  all  the  people  of  the  earth  may  know 
thy  name,  to  fear  thee,  a-s  do  thy  people  Israel.'-f  And 
again,  in  his  solemn  benediction  of  all  the  congregation  of 
Israel  at  the  conclusion  of  his  prayer,  he  makes  request,  that 
God  would  "  maintain  the  cause  of  his  people  Israel  at  all 
times,  that  all  the  people  of  the  earth  may  know  that  Jehovah 
18  God,  and  that  there  is  none  else.":}:  This  last  citation  is 
the  more  important,  as  it  contains  a  distinct  recognition  of 
the  principles  and  objects  of  the  Jewish  law.  According  to 
this  decisive  testimony,  these,  from  the  very  first,  stood  con- 
nected with  the  communication  of  the  knowledge  of  the  true 
God  to  all  the  people  of  the  earth. 

The  Mosaic  law  tended  to  promote  the  instruction  and  im 
provement  of  mankind  by  exhibiting  to  all  the  nations  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  Hebrews,  and  all  that  were  affected  by  their 

*  Dr.  Mathew's  Bib.  &  Civ.  Gov.  pp.  103,  104. 

1 1  Kings  viii.  43.  X  1  Kings  viii.  59,  60. 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  305 

fortunes,  the  most  striking  proofs  of  the  existence  and  power 
of  the  trno  God.  Such,  in  the  earlier  ages,  were  the  Egyp- 
tians, the  Canaanites,  and  the  Phenicians,  renowned  respec- 
tively for  their  wisdom,  their  military  prowess,  and  their 
commercial  enterprise.  Such,  in  later  times,  were  the  Assy- 
rians, the  Persians,  the  Greeks,  and  the  Komans  who  swayed 
successively  the  sceptre  of  universal  empire.  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, unlikely,  as  dean  Graves''*  has  suggested,  that  whatever 
knowledge  of  the  true  God  was  preserved  among  mankind, 
was  derived  from  this  source,  or  at  least  was  from  thence 
materially  extended  and  improved. 

A  deep  impression  of  the  power  of  the  true  God  was  made 
on  the  mind  of  remote  antiquity  by  the  miracles  wrought  in 
behalf  of  the  chosen  people.  This  appears  in  the  confession 
extorted  from  Pharaoh's  magicians, — "  this  is  the  finger  of 
God."f  It  is  seen  in  the  expostulations  of  the  Egyptian 
people  with  their  king  on  his  obstinacy  in  refusing  to  let  the 
Israelites  go.J  It  is  seen  in  the  terror  felt  by  the  Canaanites 
on  the  approach  of  the  Israelitish  armies,  when  kings  trem- 
bled on  their  thrones,  and  the  hearts  of  their  people  melted, 
and  there  remained  no  more  courage  in  any  man.§  It  ap- 
pears in  the  passionate  exclamations  of  the  Philistines,  three 
hundred  years  afterwards,  when  the  ark  was  brought  into  the 
camp  of  Israel, — "  "Woe  unto  us,  who  shall  deliver  us  out  of 
the  hands  of  these  mighty  gods  ?  These  are  the  gods,  which 
smote  the  Egyptians  with  all  the  plagues  in  the  wilderness.[| 
The  effect  produced  on  the  mariners,  when  Jonah  told  them 
he  was  a  Hebrew,  and  feared  Jehovah,  the  God  of  heaven, 
who  made  the  sea  and  the  dry  land,  shows  very  plainly,  that 
the  displays  of  omnipotence,  on  behalf  of  Israel,  were  not  un- 
known to  the  surrounding  nations.^  That  also  which  was 
soon  after  produced  on  the  Ninevites,  when  they  learned  that 

*  On  the  Pent.  Pt.  3  Lect.  5.  f  Ex.  viii.  19.  J  Ex.  x.  7. 

{  Josh.  ii.  9-11.    ix.  9-11,  24.       II  1  Sam.  iv.  8.  ^  Jonah  i.  10.. 

20 


306  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

he  was  a  Hebrew  prophet,  sent  of  God,  evinces  the  Bame 
thing.* 

How  ftir  the  knowledge  of  the  trne  God  was  diffused  by 
these  means,  it  is  impossible  at  this  distance  of  time,  to  trace 
with  much  distinctness.  It  cannot,  however,  be  doubted, 
that  the  manifest  and  admitted  superiority  of  Jehovah  over 
the  idols  of  the  heathens,  must  have  had  a  powerfu^  effect  in 
weakening  their  confidence  in  these  false  gods,  and  in  leading 
thoughtful  minds  to  favor  a  purer  and  more  rational  faith. 

The  reign  of  Solomon  was  eminently  favorable  to  the 
spread  of  the  religious  ideas  of  the  Hebrews.  The  magnifi- 
cence of  his  temple,  the  splendor  of  his  court,  and  the  un- 
rivalled fame  of  his  wisdom  attracted  to  his  capital,  from  all 
quarters,  men  and  women,  illustrious  for  their  rank  and  influ- 
ence. Jerusalem  became  the  Athens  of  its  day ;  the  centre 
of  light  to  the  surrounding  nations ;  who  were  ambitious  to 
sit  at  the  feet  of  its  renowned  sage  and  sovereign.  The 
queen  of  Sheba,  with  a  very  great  company,  and  all  the 
kings  of  the  earth  sought  his  presence  to  hear  his  wisdom.f 
Thus  did  the  men,  who  swayed  the  destinies  of  their  respec- 
tive countries,  become  acquainted  with  the  civil  and  religious 
institutions  of  Moses,  and  with  the  amazing  history  of  the 
divine  interpositions  in  favor  of  a  people,  professing  the  faith 
and  worship  of  the  true  God.  This  knowledge,  thus  widely 
extended,  constituted  a  leaven,  which  must  have  produced  a 
great  ferment  in  men's  religious  and  political  ideas,  and  must 
have  tended,  in  no  inconsiderable  degree,  to  their  instruction 
and  reformation. 

It  was  not,  however,  merely  persons  of  this  description, — 
princes  and  the  ambassadors  of  princes, — who  were  drawn  to 
Judea  as  the  rich  store-house  of  knowledge  and  wisdom. 
Before  the  reign  of  Solomon,  a  vast  multitude  of  foreigners 
had  been  attracted  thither,  and  without  probably  embracing 
the  Jewish  religion  wholly,  and  becoming  citizens  in  the  full 

*  Jonah  iii  5-9.        f  1  Kings  iv   29-34.     x.  1-13.     2  Chron.  ix.  1-12. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  307 

eense  by  being  circumcised,  had  renounced  idolatry  and  be- 
come worshippers  of  the  true  God.  Some  idea  of  the  total 
number  of  this  class  of  residents  may  be  obtained  from  the 
fact  that  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  fifty -three  thousand 
and  six  hundred  of  them  were  employed  in  the  work  of 
building  the  temple.  Their  character  for  intelligence  may  be 
estimated  from  the  circumstance,  that  nearly  four  thousand 
of  them  were  fit  to  be  made  overseers  of  the  work.*  This  is 
a  record  in  the  history,  brief  and  incidental  it  is  true,  and 
therefore  apt  to  be  overlooked,  like  many  others,  as  insigni- 
ficant, which  yet  is  of  the  high  st  importance,  as  showing, 
that  the  Hebrews  were  far  from  being  an  insulated  people, 
unknown  and  unfelt  by  other  nations.  It  proves,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  they  occupied  a  commanding  position,  that  the 
influence  of  their  religion  and  laws  was  widely  diffused  and 
powerfully  felt,  and  that  the  tendency  of  their  polity  was  to 
disseminate  light,  and  render  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God 
increasingly  consj)icuous  and  increasingly  operative. 

Let  any  one  duly  consider  these  circumstances, — the  im- 
mense influx  of  foreign  residents  into  Judea,  and  the  flocking 
thither  of  the  great  and  the  learned  for  purposes  connected 
with  the  improvement  of  the  mind  and  the  amelioration  of 
government, — and  he  will  readily  conceive  what  a  flood  of 
light  must  have  been  poured  upon  the  nations  from  this  cen- 
tral orb.  But  there  was  gradually  introduced  into  the  Jewish 
history  an  element,  which  gave  to  the  Mosaic  laws  and 
writings  a  tenfold  difi"usion  and  power,  and  proportion  ably 
increased  the  obligations  of  mankind  to  them.  Commerce 
first,  and  military  subjugation  afterwards,  by  degrees  dis- 
persed the  Jews  throughout  the  principal  nations  of  the 
world.  "Wherever  they  went,  they  appear  to  have  won,  by 
their  intelligence  and  their  excellent  moral  qualities,  no 
small  share  of  esteem  and  influence.  Many  of  them  rose  to 
exalted  stations  in  the  respective  governments,  under  which 

*  2  Chron.  ii.  17,  18. 


SOS  COMMENTAEIES   ON   THE 

they  lived.  Ilecataeus  attests  the  high  estimation,  iu  which 
thej  were  held  by  Alexander  the  Great,  wlio  permitted  them 
to  hold  tlie  country  of  Samaria,  free  from  tribute,  for  theii 
fidelity  towards  him.  Ptolemy  Soter  entrusted  the  fortresses 
of  Egypt  to  their  hands,  as  believing  they  would  defend 
them  faithfully  and  valiantly.  Ptolemy  Philometer  and  his 
queen  Cleopatra  committed  their  entire  kingdom  to  the  Jews, 
in  appointing  Onias  and  Dositheus  generals  of  all  their 
forces. 

The  afiection  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  towards  both  the 
nation  and  the  laws  of  the  Jews  is  well  known.  He  pur- 
chased the  freedom  of  120,000  Jewish  slaves  at  an  immense 
price,  which  he  paid  out  of  the  royal  treasures,  and  sent 
them  back  to  their  own  country.  He  was  delighted  with  the 
laws  of  Moses ;  pronounced  his  legislation  wonderful ;  was 
astonished  at  the  depth  of  his  wisdom  ;  and  professed  to  have 
learned  from  him  the  true  science  of  government.* 

The  chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Assyria,  Media,  and  Persia, 
afford  additional  testimony  to  the  estimation  in  which  the 
Jewish  people  were  held  by  contemporary  nations.  The 
superior  wisdom  and  virtue  of  the  more  cultivated  Hebrews 
attracted  the  notice  and  regard  of  the  Asiatic  sovereigns,  who 
elevated  them  to  the  highest  civil  dignities.  Witness  the 
case  of  those  excellent  men,  Daniel  and  Nehemiah, — the 
former  of  whom  became  the  prime  minister  and  favorite  of 
Darius,  the  Mede,  and  the  latter  held  a  responsible  and  con- 
fidential oflice  under  the  Persian  Artaxerxes.  "Witness  also 
the  elevation  of  the  Jewess  Esther  to  the  throne  of  Persia, 
and  of  her  noble-hearted  and  inflexible  kinsman,  Mordecai, 
to  the  primacy  of  the  realm.  During  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes, 
the  Ahasuerus  of  the  scriptures,  "many  of  the  people  of  the 

*  See  all  these  facts,  with  the  authorities  on  which  they  rest,  in  Jose- 
phus  contra  Apion. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  309 

land  became  Jews  ;"*  that  is,  tbej  renounced  idolatry,  and 
became  worshippers  of  Jehovah.  This  is  another  incidental 
record  of  the  highest  significance  and  value,  as  evincing  the 
power  and  influence  of  Judaism  on  the  gentiles. 

The  majesty  and  providence  of  God  extorted  from  succes- 
sive Assyrian,  Median,  and  Persian  monarchs,  public  official 
decrees,  recognizing  his  power  and  sovereignty  in  the  most 
explicit  terms ;  commanding  all  people,  nations,  and  lan- 
guages, to  praise  and  extol  and  honor  the  king  of  heaven  ;f 
and  to  tremble  and  fear  before  him ;:{:  and  denouncing  the 
most  terrible  punishments  upon  such  as  should  dare  to  speak 
any  thing  amiss  against  the  God  of  Israel. §  And  this  rever- 
ence and  worship  of  the  true  God  was  enjoined  upon  their 
subjects  by  these  heathen  princes,  because,  say  they,  "  He  is 
the  living  God,  and  steadfast  forever;  he  delivereth  and  he 
rescueth,  and  he  worketh  signs  and  wonders  in  heaven  and 
earth ;  his  kingdom  is  an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  his  do- 
minion is  from  generation  to  generation.! 

Edicts  to  this  eifect  were  published  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
Darius,  Cyrus,  and  Artaxerxes.  "  Such  public  and  solemn 
testimonies  to  the  majesty  of  the  God  of  Israel,"  observes  Dr. 
GraveSj^f  "  must  have  contributed  materiall}^  to  check  error 
and  idolatry,  in  a  country  where  the  form  of  the  government 
rendered  the  example  and  opinions  of  the  monarch  so  power- 
ful and  operative.  They  must  have  gained  the  Jews,  even  in 
their  captive  and  degraded  state,  much  consideration  and  at- 
tention ;  and  as  such  a  state  led  them  to  take  pride  in  their 
religious  superiority, — the  only  superiority  now  left  them, — 
and  to  exalt  the  divine  original  and  wisdom  of  their  religion ; 
so  these  events  must  have  gained  their  representations  weight 
and  credulity." 

The  oriental  nations  were  the  primeval  seat  and  source  ol 

*  Esth.  viii.  17.  f  Dan.  iii.  29.    iv.  1,  37.       J  Dan.  vi.  25-27. 

^  Dan.  ii.  iii.  iv.  v.  vi.       ||  Dan.  vi.  26,  27.    iv.  3. 
^  On  the  Pent.  Pt.  3,  Lect.  5. 


310  COMMENTARIES   ON    THE 

civilization  and  philosophy.  The  full  effect  of  the  Mosaic 
writings  in  checking  idolatry  and  spreading  the  knowledge  of 
true  religion  in  those  distant  regions,  cannot,  at  this  late  day, 
be  cleai'ly  traced,  nor  duly  estimated.  But  a  remarkable  in- 
stance of  it  occurs  in  the  history  of  the  Magian  or  ancient 
Persian  religion,* 

The  Persians,  in  process  of  time,  appear  to  have  declined 
fiom  that  purity  of  doctrine  and  worship,  which  they  had  re- 
ceived from  their  pious  ancestor  Elam,  and  to  have  engrafted 
upon  their  national  religion  the  superstitions  of  the  Zabian 
idolatry.  From  this  they  were  probably,  in  a  good  degree, 
recovered  by  the  instructions  of  the  patriarch  Abraham.  But 
they  again  lapsed  from  the  purity  of  their  primitive  faith ; 
and,  although  they  never  sank  into  the  gross  idolatry  of  other 
nation*,  they  paid  a  superstitious  reverence  to  the  heavenly 
bodies  and  the  elements  of  nature,  particularly  fire  and  the 
sun.  They  admitted  into  their  religious  creed  the  doctrine  of 
two  original  and  independent  principles  of  evil  and  of  good, 
bO  derogatory  to  the  honor  of  the  one  supreme  and  universal 
lord  and  king. 

From  these  corruptions — as  observed  by  the  author  of  Lec- 
tures on  the  Pentateuch — this  religion  was  again  purified  by 
the  celebrated  Zoroaster.  This  illustrious  person  is  repre- 
sented by  writers  best  informed  in  oriental  literature  and 
history,  to  have  been  cotemporary  with  Daniel  ;  and  if  not 
himself  a  Jew,  yet  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  Jewish 
scriptures  ;  to  which,  indeed,  the  distinguishing  features  of 

*  What  is  here  delivered  concerning  Zoroaster  and  the  Persian  religion, 
is  the  valuable  substance  of  dean  Graves's  dissertation  on  the  subject  in 
the  5th  Lecture  of  his  3rd  Part  on  the  Pentateuch.  The  reader  will  find 
the  topic  much  more  extensively  treated  there,  with  copious  references  to 
the  following  authorities :— Hyde's  Religio  Veterum  Persarum  ;  Lord's  Reli- 
gion of  the  Persees ;  Prideauxs  Connection ;  Universal  History,  Pocockii 
Specimen  Historiae  Arabicaj ;  Maurice's  History  of  Hindostan;  and  Het- 
tinger's Historia  Persarum. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  311 

his  reformation  were,  in  a  high  degree,  conformable.  Hence 
Lis  condemnation  of  two  independent  principles,  and  his  as- 
sertion, that  the  supreme  God  was  the  universal  creator  of 
both  good  and  evil.  This  dogma  he  evidently  borrowed  from 
the  doctrine  of  Isaiah,  which  that  sublime  prophet  introduces 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  prove,  that  it  was  particularly  design- 
ed to  rouse  the  attention  of  the  eastern  nations,  and  more 
especially  Persia,  to  this  important  truth.  The  statement  of 
the  principle  is  in  a  prophecy  relating  to  Cyrus  the  Great, 
the  most  renowned  and  powerful  monarch,  that  ever  filled  the 
Persian  throne :  "  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  else ;  I 
form  the  light  and  create  darkness  ;  I  make  peace  and  create 
evil ;  I  the  Lord  do  all  these  things."* 

This  radical  principle  of  true  religion  Zoroaster  inculcates 
clearly  and  strongly.  And  in  other  subordinate  particulars 
of  his  scheme,  we  find  a  conformity  to  that  of  Moses,  too 
close  to  be  accounted  for,  except  on  the  supposition  of  a  de- 
liberate imitation.  Thus,  as  Moses  heard  God  speaking  from 
the  fire,  Zoroaster  pretended  to  do  the  same.  As  the  Jews 
had  their  Scheckinah,  or  special  presence  of  God,  resting  on 
the  mercy-seat,  so  Zoroaster  taught  the  magians  to  regard 
the  sacred  fires  in  their  temples  as  emblems  of  the  divine 
presence.  As  the  Jews  had  frequently  received  fire  from 
heaven  to  consume  their  sacrifices,  Zoroaster  pretended  to  the 
same.  As  the  Jewish  priests  were  of  one  tribe,  so  were 
those  of  the  Persian  prophet.  As  the  former  were  supported, 
by  tithes  and  offerings,  so  were  the  latter.  Many  of  the  dis- 
tinctions between  things  clean  and  unclean  are  preserved  in 
the  religious  code  of  Zoroaster.  His  doctrine  and  religion  he 
delivers  as  the  doctrine  and  religion  of  Abraham  ;  so  that 
his  innovations  had  clearly  for  their  object  the  bringing  back 
of  the  magian  religion  to  the  purity,  which  it  had  originally 
derived  from  the  instructions  of  that  illustrious  patriarch. 

Some  idea  may  be  formed  of  the  wide  as  well  as  the  puri- 

*  Is.  xlv.  5-7. 


312  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

fying  influence  of  this  comparatively  uncorrupted  ftiith,  ob- 
tained by  Zoroaster  from  the  books  of  Moses,  from  the  ex- 
tent to  which  the  magian  religion  prevailed.  We  learn  from 
Lucian,  that,  in  his  time,  which  was  soon  after  the  promul- 
gation of  the  gospel,  it  was  received  by  the  Persians,  the 
Parthians,  the  Bactians,  the  Arians,  the  Sacans,  the  Medes, 
and  various  other  eastern  nations.  And  even  to  this  day,  its 
doctrines  are  held  by  a  large  sect  both  in  Persia  and  India ; 
who,  says  Prideaux,  worship  in  his  language,  practice  his 
rites,  and  preserve  his  book  with  the  highest  reverence,  as 
the  sole  rule  both  of  their  faith  and  manners. 

So  much  for  the  influence  of  Moses  and  his  writings  on  the 
religion  of  the  ancient  world.  Let  us  now  inquire  into  the 
extent  of  that  influence  on  letters.  That  both  ancient  and 
modern  literature  is  indebted  to  the  Hebrew  scriptures  for 
many  of  its  choicest  beauties,  is  an  opinion,  which  has  been 
very  generally  entertained  by  the  learned.  In  support  of  this 
opinion,  we  have  the  concurrent  testimony  of  Jewish  authors, 
christian  fathers,  pagan  writers,  and  modern  critics. 

Aristobulus,  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  who  lived  about  two 
hundred  years  after  Plato,  is  said  to  have  written  a  commen- 
tary on  the  books  of  Moses.  This  work  is  now  lost,  but  some 
fragments  of  it  are  extant  in  Clemens*  Alexandrinus  and 
Eusebius.f  Of  Plato  this  Jewish  author  says  :  "  He  followed 
our  institutes  closely,  and  diligently  examined  the  several 
parts  thereof."  Of  Pythagoras  he  observes  :  "  He  translated 
many  things  out  of  our  discipline  into  the  opinions  of  his  own 
sect.":}:  Josephus§  likewise  affirms,  that  "Pythagoras  not 
only  understood  the  Jewish  discipline,  but  embraced  many 
things  therein  contained." 

*  Strom.  1.  t  Praep.  Evang.  L.  9.  C.  6. 

X  See  Gale's  Court  of  the  Gentiles,  B.  1.  C.  2.  Also  Selden  de  Jure  Nat. 
Hebr.  L.  1.  C.  2.  It  is  due  to  truth  to  say.  that  Prideaux  has  thrown  much 
doubt  upon  the  genuineness  of  this  commentary  of  Aristobulus,  Pt.  2.  B.  1. 

g  Contra  Ap  L.  1. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBEEWS.  313 

The  primitive  christians  strongly  insisted  on  tliis  point  in 
their  arguments  and  apologies  for  the  christian  religion.  Thus 
Tertulliau  :*  "  I  am  fully  persuaded,  that  holy  writ  is  the 
treasury  of  all  following  wisdom,  "Which  of  the  poets,  which 
of  the  sophists  is  there,  who  did  not  drink  altogether  of  the 
prophets'  fountain  1  Thence  also  the  philosophers  quenched 
their  thirst  ;•  so  that  what  they  had  from  our  scriptures,  that 
we  receive  back  from  them."  Again  Tertullianf  observes : 
"The  philosopher  Menedemus,  who  was  a  great  patron  of  the 
opinion  of  divine  providence,  admired  that  which  the  seventy 
related,  and  was  in  this  point  of  the  same  opinion,"  Clemens 
Alexandrinusij:  styles  Plato  "  the  Hebrew  philosopher,"  and 
again  and  again  asserts,  that  "  the  Greeks  stole  their  chief 
opinions  out  of  the  books  of  Moses  and  the  prophets,"  Jus- 
tin Martyr§  affirms  concerning  Plato :  "  He  drew  many 
things  from  the  Hebrew  fountains,  especially  his  pious  con- 
ceptions of  God  and  his  worship."!  The  same  is  declared  by 
Augustin,^ 

The  testimony  of  pagan  philosophers,  critics,  and  historians 
is  to  the  same  effect.  Hermippus,**  a  disciple  and  biographer 
of  Pythagoras,  says,  that  his  master  "  transferred  many  things 
out  of  the  Jewish  institutions  into  his  own  philosophy,"  On 
this  account  he  styles  him  "  the  imitator  of  the  Jewish  dog- 
mas," Hence  Grotiusf  f  says  :  "  According  to  the  testimony 
of  Hermippus,  Pythagorean  lived  among  the  Jews,"  I^ume- 
nius,:{::j:  a  Greek  philosopher  of  the  Pythagorean  school,  speak- 
ing of  Plato,  exclaims :  "  What  is  Plato,  but  Moses  atticis- 
ing?"  Gale,  in  his  Court  of  the  Gentiles,  has  gone  into  an 
extended  examination  of  the  sentiments  of  Plato  concerning 
God,  his  nature  and  worship,  the  production  of  the  universe, 

*  Apol.  C.  47.  t  Apol.  C.  18.  J  Strom.  1.  §  Apol.  2. 

II  See  Gale's  Court  of  the  Gentiles,  B.  1.  C.  2. 

T[  De  Civitat.  Dei,  L.  8.  C.  11. 

**  See  Ibid.    Also  Selden  de  Jur.  Nat.  Hebr.  L.  1.  C.  2. 

tt  Votnm.  p.  124.  JJ  In  Gale,  B.  1.  C.  2. 


314  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

the  fall  of  man,  &c.  &c.  In  this  review,  he  has  pointed  out 
many  striking  analogies  between  tbe  opinions  of  that  philos- 
opher and  the  doctrines  of  holy  scripture.  The  reader  is  re- 
ferred, for  full  satisfaction,  to  the  work  itself;  a  few  instances, 
as  a  specimen,  follow.  In  his  Phaedo,  he  speaks  of  a  "  divine 
word,"  transmitting  to  us  a  knowledge  of  the  soul's  immor- 
tality ;  where  tlie  allusion  is  probably  to  a  scriptural  tradition. 
In  his  Pbilebus,  he  says  :  "  The  knowledge  of  the  one  infinite 
being  was  from  the  gods,  who  communicated  this  knowledge 
to  us  by  a  certain  Prometheus,  together  with  a  bright  fire." 
Who  can  doubt  the  reference  here  to  those  original  divine 
communications  made  to  the  patriarclis,  and  to  the  Scheckinah, 
that  fiery  symbol  of  the  divine  presence  ?  Not  less  plain  is 
the  allusion,  in  Plato's  first  or  self-existent  being,  to  the  sublime 
declaration  of  Jehovah,*  "  I  am  that  I  am."f  In  his  Timaeus, 
Plato  says  :  '"  After  the  father  of  tlie  universe  had  beheld  his 
woi'kmanship,  he  was  delighted  therein."  How  indubitably 
does  this  flow  from  the  divine  record,:}:  "  And  God  saw  every 
thing  that  he  had  made,  and  behold,  it  was  very  good." 

Plato's  way  appears  to  have  been  to  disguise  what  he  re- 
ceived from  the  Jewish  fountain,  under  the  form  of  parable 
and  allegory.  Origen§  suggests  the  reason  of  this.  "  It  was 
the  custom  of  Plato,"  he  says,  "  to  hide  his  choicest  opinions, 
under  the  figure  of  some  fable,  because  of  the  vulgar  sort, 
lest  he  should  too  much  displease  the  fabulous  people  by 
making  mention  of  the  Jews,  who  were  so  infamous  amongst 
them."|     Plato  himself  owns  as  much  in  saying,  that  "  what 

*  Ex.  iii.  14. 

t  See  August,  de  Civit.  Dei.  L.  8.  C.  11,  with  Lud.  Vives's  Notes. 

X  Gen.  i.  31.  g  Cont.  Cela.  L.  4. 

I!  Serranus,  a  learned  French  protestant  divine,  in  his  preface  to  Plato'a 
works,  assigns  the  same  cause  for  his  silence  respecting  the  Jews.  "  These 
symbols,"  he  observes,  "  Plato  drew  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Jews,  as  all 
the  learned  early  Christians  assert:  but  he  industriously  abstained  from 
making  any  mention  of  the  Jews,  because  their  name  was  odious  among 
all  nations." 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  315 

the  Greeks  receive  from  the  barbarians,  they  put  into  a  better 
form  or  garb."  Besides,  there  is  little  doubt,  that  Plato  does, 
in  point  of  fact,  make  distinct  references  to  the  Jews,  under 
other  names,  as  Phenicians,  Syrians,  Egyptians,  Chaldeans, 
and  Barbarians.* 

Clearchus,  a  distinguished  disciple  of  Aristotle,  in  a  book 
now  lost,  but  cited  by  Josephus,f  says,  that  he  had  heard  his 
master  speak  of  a  certain  Jew,  with  whom,  when  he  resided 
in  Asia,  he  had  held  frequent  conversations.  This  person, 
Aristotle  described  as  a  man  of  wonderful  learning,  wisdom, 
temperance,  and  goodness ;  and  said,  that  he  [Aristotle]  had 
received  more  knowledge  from  him,  than  he  had  been  able  to 
impart  in  return.  A  remarkable  proof  of  Aristotle's  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Mosaic  law  is  adduced  out  of  Arrianij:  by 
Prideaux,§  It  is  well  known,  that  this  philosopher  had  been 
the  tutor  of  Alexander  the  Great.  When  Alexander  went  into 
winter-quarters,  in  Asia  Minor,  he  ordered  all  the  soldiers  of 
his  army,  who  had  married  that  year,  to  return  into  Mace- 
donia, spend  the  winter  with  their  wives,  and  come  back  to 
him  in  the  spring.  This  agrees  with  the  Jewish  law,j[  but 
not  with  the  usages  of  any  other  nation  known  in  history. 
Does  it  not  afford  probable  ground  for  the  conjecture,  that 
Aristotle  learned  it  from  the  Jew,  with  whom  he  so  much 
conversed  while  in  Asia,  and  that,  approving  it  as  an  equitable 
usage,  he  had  made  it  known  to  Alexander,  while  acting  as 
his  preceptor,  who  was  thence  induced  to  put  it  in  practice 
upon  this  occasion  ? 

That  the  Grecian  critics  were  acquainted  with  the  writings 
of  Moses,  is  certain  from  the  fact,  that  we  find  Longinus,  in 
his  treatise  on  the  Sublime,^  drawing  from  them  in  illustra- 
tion  of  his   subject.     The   same  is   true  of  the   historians. 

*  See  in  confirmation  of  this  many  authorities  in  Gale,  B.  1.  C.  2. 
t  Con.  Ap.  L.  1.  X  Lib.  1.  ^  Connex.  Vol.  1.  p.  366. 

II  Deut.  xxiv.  5.  ^  Led.  8, 


316  COMMENTAKIES    ON    THE 

Strabo*  makes  honorable  mention  of  Moses  as  a  lawgiver; 
and  Diodorus  Siculusf  acknowledges  Aiim  to  be  the  first  of 
legislators,  from  whom  all  laws  had  their  origin.:}: 

Among  distinguished  modern  critics  and  divines,  who 
have  held  the  opinion,  that  profane  literature  is  greatly  in- 
debted to  the  sacred  scriptures,  may  be  mentioned  Ludovicus 
Yives,  the  Scaligers,  Grotius,  Bochart,  Selden,  Usher,  Cud- 
worth,  Stillingfleet,  "Witsius,  Magee,  and  a  host  of  others,  of 
scarcely  inferior  note.  Most  of  these  authorities  are  cited  in 
different  parts  of  Gale's  Court  of  the  Gentiles.  It  would  oc- 
cupy more  space  than  can  be  spared  for  such  a  purpose  to 
introduce  extracts  from  them  all  here.  Let  one  or  two  sufiice. 
Bochart's§  testim.ony  is  in  these  words :  "  Whatsoever  was 
most  ancient  among  the  heathen,  the  same  was  fetched  or 
wrested  from  our  scriptures."  Grotius]  expresses  his  opinion 
thus :  "  That  which  the  ancient  philosophers  drew  from  the 
theology  of  the  Phenicians,  and  the  poets  from  them,  the 
Pheni-cians  drew  from  the  Hebrews."  That  the  Phenicians 
were  identical  with  the  ancient  Canaanites ;  that  they  were 
well  acquainted  with  the  Jewish  doctrine  and  traditions ; 
that,  by  reason  of  their  devotion  to  navigation  and  commerce, 
they  spread  these  ideas  all  along  the  shores  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean sea,  in  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  Italy,  Spain,  Africa,  and 
numerous  islands ;  and  that  the  Jews  themselves  were  known 
to  other  nations,  under  the  names  of  Phenicians,  Syrians, 
Assyrians,  &c.,  has  been  proved  at  large  by  learned  men.^ 

The  intellectual  qualities  and  achievements  of  the  Hebrew 
race  were  such  as  naturally  to  give  thera  a  commanding 
power  and  influence.     The  sublimity,  splendor,  and  force  of 

*  Lib.  IG.  t  Biblioth.  Lib.  1. 

t  See  Gale,  B.  1,  B.  2.    B.  3,  C.  9.  §  Phaleg.  L.  1,  C.  1. 

I!  Ou  Mat.  xxiv.  38. 

T[  See  Boch.  Phaleg.  Lib.  4,  C.  34;  also  his  Canaan,  Pref.  and  Bks.  1 
and  2.  Gale's  C'-.ciTt  of  the  Gentiles,  B.  1,  Chaps.  3-12.  Josephus  con. 
Ap,  L.  1.     Euseb.  Prep.  Ev.  L.  1.     Voss.  de  Hist.  Graec.  L.  3,  C.  16. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  317 

the  Hebrew  genius  have  never  been  surpassed.  In  history, 
m  gtatesnnanship,  in  military  renown,  in  poetry,  in  eloquence, 
*.n  music,  in  architecture,  in  legislation,  and  in  the  true  phi- 
losophy of  life,  the  annals  of  Judea  furnish  names,  illustrious 
beyond  those  of  most  other  nations.  As  historians,  Tacitus 
and  Thucydides  must  yield  the  palm  to  Moses  and  the  author 
of  Samuel.  Of  how  many  important  and  interesting  points 
of  historical  inquiry  would  the  world  be  ignorant  without  the 
Pentateuch  !  Moses  was  the  father  of  history.  His  power 
of  condensation  has  never  been  surpassed.  The  first  few 
chapters  of  Genesis  furnish  a  connected  history  of  two  thou- 
sand of  the  earliest  years  of  time.  Unlike  other  ancient  his- 
torians, Moses  has  no  fabulous  ages.  There  is,  in  his  clear, 
consistent,  and  unmatched  pages,  no  uncertainty,  no  fable, 
no  conjecture,  no  chasm.  In  the  writings  of  all  other  early 
historical  inquirers,  the  first  ages  of  mankind  am  like  a  dis- 
tant ocean,  whose  troubled  waters  are  overspread  with  shad- 
ows, clouds,  and  darkness ;  but  the  Mosaic  history,  to  borrow 
the  elegant  simile  of  Bryant,  is  like  a  bright  but  remote 
object,  seen  through  the  glass  of  an  excellent  optician,  clear, 
distinct,  and  well  defined.  The  historic  record  of  Moses  is  a 
treasure  above  the  price  of  rubies.  By  its  sure,  serene,  and 
steady  light,  we  are  conducted,  through  the  long  night  of 
ages,  back  to  the  very  threshold  of  creation,  and  placed 
beside  the  first  human  pair,  in  the  garden  of  Eden.  As  mil 
itary  commanders,  Joshua,  David,  and  the  Maccabees  will 
compare  favorably  with  the  great  captains  of  antiquity. 
Among  legislators  and  statesmen,  where  shall  we  meet  with 
higher  civil  qualities  than  those  which  gave  such  lustre  to 
the  names  of  Joseph,  Moses,  Samuel,  David,  Solomon, 
Daniel,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah?  The  music  of  the  temple 
service,  as  arranged  by  David  and  Asaph,  has  never  been 
surpassed  in  sublimity  and  richness.  The  architecture  of  the 
temple  and  palace  of  Solomon,  as  has  been  shown  by  learned 
men,  was  imitated  by  the  most  polished  nations  of  antiquity. 


318  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

Its  influence  has  been  traced  in  those  elegant  structures, 
■whose  very  ruins  attest  the  fine  architectural  taste  ana 
genius  of  the  Greeks.  Socrates,  Cicero,  and  Seneca,  the 
brightest  names  in  the  philosophic  annals  of  Greece  and 
Rome,  pale  before  the  sublime  and  sententious  ethical  wis- 
dom of  Solomon.  Demosthenes  is  matched,  if  not  over 
matched,  in  oratory,  both  by  the  prophet,  whose  lips  were 
touched  with  a  living  coal  from  the  altar,  and  by  the  great 
apostle  to  the  gentiles.  In  the  higher  walks  of  poetry. 
Homer,  Milton,  and  Shakespeare  are  inferior  to  Isaiah  and 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Job.  In  lyrics,  Pindar  and  Sappho 
must  yield  the  supremacy  to  Moses  and  David.  "  Compare 
the  book  of  Psalms  with  the  Odes  of  Horace  and  Anacreon, 
with  the  hymns  of  Callimachus,  the  golden  verses  of  Pytha- 
goras, and  the  choruses  of  the  Greek  tragedians ;  and  you 
will  quickly  see  how  greatly  it  surpasses  them  all  in  piety  of 
sentiment,  in  sublimit}^  of  expression,  in  purity  of  morals, 
and  in  rational  theology."*  Indeed,  the  lyrical  compositions 
of  the  royal  poet  are  marked  by  a  depth  of  feeling,  a  strength 
of  thought,  a  brilliancy  of  genius,  a  chasteness  of  diction,  and 
a  purity  of  taste,  not  surpassed  by  any  writer  in  any  nation  or 
age  of  the  world.  In  pastorals,  Virgil  and  Theocritus  are 
more  than  equalled  by  Solomon.  In  elegy,  David  is  the 
superior  of  Bion  and  Moschus.  The  whole  range  of  elegiac 
poetry  offers  nothing  that  can  be  compared  with  his  sublime 
and  exquisite  lament  over  the  death  of  Saul  and  Jonathan.f 
In  deep  and  breathing  pathos,  Jeremiah  distances  all  com- 
petitors, whether  among  ancient  or  modern  bards.  The 
sacred  scriptures  throughout  are  distinguished  by  a  sublimity 
of  genius,  a  vigor  of  conception,  a  wealth  of  thought,  a  splen- 
dor of  imagery,  and  a  grace  and  beauty  of  style,  which  give 
to  the  bible,  though  much  of  it  was  written  in  a  compara- 
tively rude  age,  an  elevation  and  an  excellence,  which  do  not 
belong  to  the  most  admired  productions  of  the  human  mind, 

*  Bp.  Watson  in  Smith's  Heb.  Pcop.  p.  183.  f  2  Sam,  i  19  27 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  319 

in  the  most  advanced  and  cultivated  condition  of  human 
society.  And  the  age  of  Pericles  in  Greece,  of  Augustus  in 
Rome,  of  queen  Anne  in  Britain,  of  Louis  XIY.  in  France, 
and  of  the  Medici  in  Italy,  all  nave  their  counterpart,  if  not, 
indeed,  their  remote  origin,  in  the  brilliant  reign  of  a  Hebrew 
prince,  whose  renown  for  wisdom  is  not  bounded  even  by  the 
limits  of  civilization,  but  has  penetrated  the  dark  mass  of 
barbarian  rudeness  and  ignorance. 

It  would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  a  book  so  comprehensive,  so 
weighty,  so  perfect,  and  so  wonderful,  as  the  bible,  had  had 
no  influence  on  human  thought  and  learning.  In  point  of 
fact,  its  influence  has  been  most  penetrating  and  difi'usive. 

That  the  greater  part  of  the  myths,  which  make  up  the 
ancient  pagan  theology,  were  but  corrupt  imitations  of  scrip- 
ture histories,  has  been  abundantly  demonstrated  by  learned 
men,  as  Selden,  Bochart,  Yossius,  the  Scaligers,  Maimonides, 
and  various  of  the  Christian  fathers.  These  authorities  will 
be  found  cited  at  length  by  Gale  in  the  second  book  of  his 
Court  of  the  Gentiles,  and  by  Stillingfleet  in  the  fifth  chapter 
of  the  third  book  of  his  Origines  Sacrae,  to  which  the  reader 
is  referred  for  full  satisfaction.  From  the  remarkable  corre- 
spondence of  the  heathen  mythology  with  the  scriptures,  it  is 
manifest,  that  the  former  is  but  a  corruption  of  the  latter. 
This  is  so  plain  and  certain,  that  no  one  who  has  studied  the 
subject  will  hesitate  to  assent  to  the  remark  of  Bochart: 
"  The  agreement  is  so  wonderful,  that  even  to  the  blind  it 
will  appear,  that  the  ancient  framers  of  fables  borrowed- 
many  things  from  the  sacred  writers." 

Tnat  poetry  was  the  earliest  form  of  literature,  is  asserted 
by  Strabo,*  and  proved  by  Yossius.f  The  early  pagan  bards 
were  much  indebted  to  the  poetry  of  the  scriptures.  Linus, 
Orpheus,  Homer  and  Ilesiod,  as  well  as  others  who  followed 
them,   drew   copiously   from   the   waters   of  the   sanctuary 

«•  Lib.  1.  f  De  Hist.  Graec.  Lib.  1,  C.  1 


320  COMMEJ^TARIES    ON   THE 

Phenicia  ar.d  Egypt  weic  tbeir  preceptors;  and  these  had 
both  been  under  the  tuition  of  Israel  in  the  best  part  of  their 
learning.*  Some  suppose  Linus,  the  earliest  of  the  Greek 
poets,  to  have  been  a  Phenician  by  birth,f  and  to  have  flou- 
rished about  the  time  of  the  expulsion  of  the  Canaanites  by 
the  Hebrews  under  Joshua.  If  so,  he  must  have  known  the 
wonders  wrought  by  divine  power  in  behalf  of  the  chosen 
people,  and  the  sublime  doctrines  of  the  Jewish  lawgiver 
concerning  the  power  and  providence  of  Jehovah.  The  few 
fragments  of  his  poems  which  remain,  appear  to  have  flowed 
from  this  sacred  fountain.  "  It  is  easy,"  he  says,  in  a  golden 
line  still  extant,  "  for  God  to  achieve  all  things  ;  and  with 
him  nothing  is  impossible."  Steuchus  Eugubinus  has  drawn 
an  elaborate  parallel  between  the  Mosaic  and  Orphic  theolo- 
gy ;  in  which  he  has  shown  the  traduction  of  the  latter  from 
the  former.  According  to  him,  the  first  part  of  the  theology 
of  Orpheus  consisted  in  praises  of  the  creator.  The  second 
treats  of  chaos,  the  formation  of  man  out  of  the  earth,  the 
infusion  of  the  rational  soul  by  his  maker,  &c.  &c.  These 
and  other  topics  are  clearly  derived  from  the  Mosaic  history, 
though  they  are  overlaid  with  a  veil  of  allegory,  in  which  the 
lively  imagination  of  the  Greeks  so  much  delighted.  Justin 
Martyr;}:  has  preserved  a  fragment  of  Orpheus,  wherein  there 
appears  to  be  something  of  the  history  of  Abraham  and  the 
tables  of  the  decalogue.  Artapanus  is  cited  by  Eusebius,§ 
afiirming  that  Moses  was  called  by  the  Greeks  Musaeus,  and 
that  he  was  the  teacher  of  Orpheus.  Upon  this  Witsius||  ob- 
serves, that  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  Orpheus  contem- 
porary with  Moses ;  but  that  the  meaning  of  Artapanus  is, 
that  for  whatever  there  is  just  and  true  in  his  theology,  he  is 

*  See  on  this  subject  Gale,  B.  3,  C.l;  and  Wits.  Aegypt.  L.  2,  C.  14. 
t  "  Linum  a  Phoenice  venisee  tradunt  veteres."      Wits.  Aegypt.  L.  2, 
C.  14. 

X  Cited  by  Gale,  B.  3,  C.  1. 
§  Praep.  Evan.  L.  9,  C.  27.  |1  Aegyptiaca,  L.  2,  C.  14. 


LA.WS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  321 

indebted  to  Moses.  "VVitsius*  is  further  of  the  opinion,  that 
Moses  is  expressly  mentioned  and  praised  by  Orpheus,  under 
the  epithet  vSoyevfiq,  i.  e.  born  of  or  produced  by  water,  in 
allusion  to  his  being  taken  out  of  the  water  by  Pharaoh's 
daughter.f  Homer,  the  prince  of  Grecian  poets,  was  cotem- 
poraiy  with  Isaiah,:}:  or  flourished  only  a  short  time  before 
him.  That  he  visited  Egypt,  and  spent  some  time  there,  is 
an  opinion,  commonly  entertained  by  the  learned.§  Some 
even  think,  that  Egypt  was  his  native  country, ||  Sir  Walter 
Ealeigh^  was  of  the  opinion,  that  he  derived  not  a  few  of  his 
fictions  from  scripture  traditions,  which  he  gathered  up  in 
Egypt.  This  he  infers  from  the  affinity  of  many  of  his  ex- 
pressions to  scripture  language  ;  and  he  believes  him  not  un- 
acquainted with  the  books  of  Moses.  Eugubinus  likewise 
speaks  of  a  "  manifest  concord  "  between  the  sublimity  and 
religious  rites  of  Homer  and  those  of  sacred  scripture.  The 
same  general  position  as  to  indebtedness  to  the  Hebrew 
sources  seems  true  of  Hesiod,  his  entire  theogony  being, 
apparently,  but  a  corrupt  imitation  of  sacred  persons,  actions, 
and  stories.** 

Nor  was  the  obligation  of  pagan  history  to  the  Hebrew 
scriptures  less  than  that  of  pagan  poetry.  One  great  design 
of  Eusebius,  in  his  Chronicon,  is  to  demonstrate  the  high 
antiquity  of  the  divine  records,  and  the  derivation  of  much 
of  the  matter  of  profane  historians  from  the  Hebrew  writers ; 
and  this  design  has  been  learnedly  and  successfully  carried 
on  in  modern  times  by  Joseph  Scaliger,  Yossius,  Bochart, 
Grotius,  Witsius,  Gale,  and  others.  The  scriptures  contain  a 
series  of  historical  records  of  priceless  worth.  Half  the  ages 
of  the  world  would  be  shrouded  in  impenetrable  darkness, 

*  Aegyptiaca,  L.  2,  C.  14.  t  Ex.  ii.  10. 

X  Carion  Chron.  L.  2,  in  Gale,  B.  3,  C.  1. 

I  See  Grotius  on  Mat.  x.  28,  and  Gale,  B.  3,  C.  1. 

II  Sanford  Descens.  L.  2,  in  Gale,  B.  3,  C.  1. 

^  Hist.  Pt.  1,  B.  1,  C.  6.  **  Carion  Chron.  L.  2.    Gale,  B.  a.  C.  1. 

21 


322  COMMENTARIES   ON   THX 

but  for  the  light  cast  upon  them  by  these  venerable  writings. 
The  creation  of  the  material  universe,  the  formation,  trial, 
and  fall  of  man,  the  promise  of  a  savior,  the  patriarchal  age, 
the  deluge,  the  foundation  and  settlement  of  the  new  world, 
the  confusion  of  languages,  the  division  of  men  into  several 
communities,  their  dispersion  into  the  various  regions  of  the 
globe,  the  history  of  the  earliest  monarchies  of  earth,  the  call 
of  Abraham,  the  selection  of  a  particular  nation  to  be  the 
chosen  people  of  God,  their  descent  into  Egypt,  their  resi- 
dence there,  their  exodus  out  of  the  house  of  bondage,  their 
establishment  into  a  commonwealth,  the  momentous  events 
of  their  subsequent  history,  the  overthrow  of  their  state,  the 
progress  and  decline  of  Canaan,  Persia,  and  Media, — all  this, 
and  much  more,  would,  without  the  Hebrew  scriptures, 
either  be  wholly  lost  to  mankind,  or  buried  in  the  mists  of 
tradition  and  fable. 

In  rega'-d  to  all  these  points,  and  many  others,  profane 
historians  have  drawn  much  of  their  matter  from  Hebrew 
Bources,  either  directly,  or  through  the  Chaldeans,  the  Egyp- 
tians, and  especially  the  Phenicians,  If  any  one  doubts  this, 
let  him  read  the  4:th  chapter  of  the  2nd  book  of  Witsius's 
Aegyptiaca,  the  3rd  chapter  of  the  3rd  book  of  Still ingfleet's 
Origines  Sacrae,  and  chaps.  2-8  of  the  3rd  book  of  Gale's 
Court  of  the  Gentiles.  He  will  find  there  such  an  array  of 
proofs,  as  must  convince  the  most  incredulous.  There  is 
scarcely  any  part  of  the  sacred  record,  which,  in  a  form  more 
or  less  corrupted,  has  not  found  its  way  into  the  pages  of 
profane  story.  Gentile  writers,  both  Greek  and  barbarian, 
abound  with  references  to  the  origin  of  the  world,  its  creation 
by  the  power  of  God,  its  primitive  chaos,  its  subsequent 
order  and  beauty,  the  production  of  light,  the  formation  of 
man  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  the  infusion  of  the  rational 
soul,  man's  creation  in  the  image  of  God,  the  paradisiacal 
state,  the  fall,  the  tree  of  life,  the  depravation  of  man's  will 
and  affections,  the  flood,  the  dove  and  raven  of  Noah,  the 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  32f3 

tower  of  Babel,  the  golden  calf,  the  supply  of  water  in  the 
wilderness,  &c.  &g.  It  would  detain  us  too  long  to  exhibit 
the  proof  of  all  this  in  detail.     Let  a  few  specimens  suffice. 

Moses  affirms,  that  the  world  had  a  beginning.*  This 
all  the  poets,  philosophers,  and  historians,  who  flourished 
before  the  time  of  Aristotle,  with  one  spirit  and  voice,  as 
Lactantius  says,  attest ;  and  none  more  fully  than  Plato. 
It  was  the  common  opinion  of  Greeks,  Egyptians,  Indians, 
and  the  gentile  nations  generally ;  derived,  beyond  a  doubt, 
from  the  original  fountain  of  divine  revelation.  Aristotle 
was  the  first  of  the  philosophers,  who  taught  the  eternity  of 
the  world.  To  this  he  was  impelled  by  a  proud  spirit  of 
speculation,  a  vain  fondness  of  philosophizing,  that  made 
liim  reject  all  traditions,  which  he  could  not  bend  to  his  own 
reason.f 

Moses  makes  God  the  creator  of  the  world.:]:  In  like  man- 
ner heathen  writers  ascribe  the  origin  of  the  world  to  a  real 
divine  efficience.§  Plato,  in  divers  of  his  works,!  speaks  of 
the  supreme  cause  ;  of  the  cause  of  causes  ;  of  natural  things 
as  not  springing  up  of  themselves,  but  as  being  the  products 
of  God's  workmanship ;  of  its  being  unworthy  of  a  philoso- 
pher to  treat  only  of  second  causes,  and  leave  out  God,  who 
was  the  first  and  chief  cause ;  of  a  first  beauty,  which  is  the 
cause  of  all  the  rest ;  and  of  one  supreme  idea  of  good 
(God),  which  gives  being,  virtue,  and  essence  to  all  things 
else,  eternal  in  duration,  infinite-  in  power,  and  independent 
in  working.  Homer  says  :  "  By  Jove's  nod  the  earth  exist- 
ed, and  whatsoever  the  earth  brings  forth  ;  the  sea  existed, 
and  whatsoever  the  sea  produces  ;  the  air  existed,  and  what- 
soever the  air  sustains  ;  the  heavens  existed,  and  whatsoever 

*  Gen.  i.  1. 

•}■  See  the  authorities  in  proof  of  these  positions  in  the  Aegyptiaca  of 
Witsius,  B.  2.  C.  14,  and  in  Gale,  B.  3.  C.  3. 

I  Gen.  i.  1 .  |  See  Wits.  &.  Gale,  as  above. 

II  As  in  his  Phaed.  Tim.  Theaetet.  Soph.  &  Repub. 


324  COMMENTAEIES   ON   THE 

moveth  In  the  heavens.  All  these  works  are  wrought  by  the 
nod  (i.  e.  the  will)  of  Jove."  Maximiis  Tjriiis  *  cliscourRes 
most  elegantly  and  eloquently  concerning  God,  representing 
him  as  the  maker  of  all  things  by  the  simple  exertion  of  his 
will.  He  speaks  of  him  as  the  being,  who  marshalled  the 
host  of  heaven,  who  guides  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  in  their 
orbits,  who  determines  their  rising  and  their  setting,  who 
distinguishes  times  and  seasons,  who  governs  the  winds,  who 
formed  the  sea  and  the  earth,  who  pours  out  the  rivers,  who 
draws  forth  the  fruits,  who  produces  the  tribes  of  animals, 
and,  in  fine,  whose  mind,  simple,  uncompounded,  and  incor- 
ruptible, is  in  no  respect  divided,  but  with  incredible  ve- 
locity, with  a  mere  glance  of  the  eye,  adorns  and  makes 
glorious  whatever  it  touches.  From  what  fountain  could 
these  sublime  and  noble  ideas  of  the  divine  power  and  pro- 
vidence be  drawn,  if  not  from  scripture  history  or  tradition  ? 
They  are  certainly  emanations  of  celestial  light. 

The  order  of  the  creation,  as  narrated  by  Moses,  is  imitated 
by  pagan  writers.  According  to  the  Mosaic  account,  the 
heaven  and  the  earth  were  the  beginning  of  the  creation; 
according  to  Plato,  fire  and  earth  were  the  elementar}'-  prin- 
ciples of  things,  "What  Moses  calls  tohoo  iohoo^  emptiness 
and  confusion,  the  poets  call  chaos,  a  confused  and  shapeless 
mass.  Moses  represents  a  universal  darkness  as  originally 
overspreading  all  things ;  Thales,  the  philosopher,  taught  that 
darkness  preceded  light.  Moses  speaks  of  the  earth  as  ori- 
ginally surrounded  by  water  ;f  Thales,  again,  says  that  water 
was  the  first  principle  of  things,  and  that  God  was  that  spirit 
that  formed  all  things  out  of  water,:}: 

Moses  speaks  of  the  spirit  of  God  as  moving,  literally 
"  brooding,"  upon  the  waters.  The  word  expresses  the  trem- 
ulous motion  of  the  hen,  while  hatching  her  eggs,  and  sug- 
gests the  idea  of  incubation.  Tliis  undoubtedly  gave  rise  to 
the  notion,  so  widely  prevalent  among  the  ancients,  that  the 

*  Dissert.  25.  f  Gen.  i.  2.  J  Cic.  de  Nat.  Deor.  L.  1.  C.  10, 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  325 

world  was  generated  from  an  egg.  The  affinity  of  the  Mosaic 
and  pagan  histories,  and  the  derivation  of  the  one  from  the 
other,  are  here  apparent  to  every  one,  on  the  slightest  inspec- 
tion.* The  Mosaic  account  of  the  creation,  indistinctly 
understood,  is,  manifestly,  the  germ  of  all  the  above  cited 
opinions. 

Anaxagoras,f  who  was  the  first  of  the  philosophers  to  teach 
distinctly  the  separate  existence  of  one  supreme  and  all-di- 
recting mind,  spoke  of  the  material  world  as  originating  from 
a  chaotic  mass,  consisting  of  different  kinds  of  particles, 
which  afterwards  combined  in  homogeneous  masses ;  "  an 
opinion,"  observes  Dr.  Graves,:}:  "  so  similar  to  that  of  the 
Mosaic  records,  that  we  can  scarcely  doubt  but  that  it  was 
from  them  derived." 

Moses  states,  that  man  was  formed  out  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground. §  IS'umerous  are  the  vestiges  of  this  fact  in  pagan 
authors.  By  Sanchoniathon,]]  the  oldest  of  profane  historians, 
man  is  said  to  have  sprung  out  of  the  earth.  It  is  probable, 
that  Plato  alludes  to  this,  when  he  mentions  a  Phenician  fable 
touching  the  brotherhood  of  mankind,  as  having  all  had  a 
common  extraction  out  of  the  earth.^  Socrates,  Zeno,  and 
Plato  concur  in  affirming,  that  the  genesis  of  men  was  from 
the  earth.**  The  latter  of  these  writers  takes  pains  to  say, 
that  this  ancient  tradition,  as  he  styles  it,  is  worthy  of  all 
credit. 

Moses  affirms  the  direct  infusion  by  the  Deity  of  the 
rational  soul  into  man.ff  Herein  also  he  is  imitated  by  pro- 
fane writers.  Sanchoniathon,  according  to  the  version  of 
Philo  Byblius,  states  the  same  fact,  in  almost  the  same  words. 
Orpheus  says,  that  man  was  framed  by  God  himself  out  of 

*  Wits.  Aegypt.  L.  2.  C.  14. 

t  See  Bruck.  Hist.  Phiios.  L.  2.  C.  1.  Sect.  20. 

X  On  the  Pent.  Pt.  3.  Lect.  5.  Sect.  2. 

§  Gen.  ii.  7.  1|  Gale,  B.  3.  C.  4.  H  In  Gale,  B.  3.  C.  4. 

**  See  the  citations  in  Wits.  Aeg.  L.  2.  C.  15.     ff  Gen.  ii.  7. 


326  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

the  earth,  aud  received  from  him  a  rational  soul.*  Epichar- 
mus,  in  Plutarch,  teaches,  that  the  soul  came  from  God,  and 
was  by  him  breathed  into  man.  He  adds,  that  at  death  each 
part  goes  whence  it  had  come,  the  earth  returns  to  earth,  and 
the  spirit  ascends  to  God.f  Grotius  produces  a  like  senti- 
ment out  of  Euripides. 

In  the  Mosaic  history  it  is  said,  that  God  created  man  in 
his  own  image.:}:  Profane  history  has  copied  this.  Plato,  in 
his  Critias,  affirms,  that  in  the  first  men  there  was  a  portion 
of  God,  a  divine  nature,  which  he  denominates  the  old 
nature.§  In  his  Republic,!  he  places  the  likeness  to  the 
Deity  in  the  soul,  and  indeed  in  the  wisdom  and  probity  of 
the  soul.  In  his  Theaetetus,  again,  he  makes  the  image  of 
God  to  consist  in  justice,  holiness,  and  prudence.^  In  the 
above  instances,  how  admirable  the  correspondence  between 
sacred  and  profane  story  !  In  those  which  follow,  the  agree- 
ment is  not  less  striking. 

Moses  relates  that  man,  formed  in  the  image  of  God,  was 
placed  in  Eden,**  a  garden  of  pleasures," where  all  was  beau- 
ty, melody,  serenity,  fragrance,  and  delight.  This  blissful 
state  of  man  in  paradise  has  been  celebrated  by  heathen 
poets,  philosophers,  and  historians,  under  the  name  of  the 
golden  age.  Particular  citations  are  here  unnecessary. 
Allusions  to  this  happy  period,  and  descriptions  of  it,  pervade 
the  literature  of  pagan  nations.  Their  writers  kindle  aud 
glow  under  the  inspiring  theme.  They  represent  this  primi- 
tive state  of  msm  as  a  state  of  unmingled  happiness. 
Innocence,  peace,  and  joy  are  constant  inhabitants  of  his 
soul.  External  nature  is  in  harmony  with  his  pure  mind 
Here  are  no  pinching  frosts,  no  burning  heats,  no  stubborn 
soil,  no  blasting  winds,  no  devouring  beasts,  no  thorns,  weeds, 
or  brambles.     Perpetual  spring  reigned.     No  labor  of  agri- 

*  Gale,  B.  3.  C.  4.         f  Wits.  L.  2.  C.  15.      J  Gen.  1.  27. 

I  Gale,  B.  3.  C.  4.         []  Lib.  10.  f  Wits.  Aeg.  L.  2.  C.  15. 

**  Gen.  ii.  8. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBKEWS.  327 

culture  was  necessary.  The  unplougbed  earth  yielded  its 
delicious  fruits.  The  gentle  breezes  fanned  the  spontaneous 
flowers.  The  rivers  flowed  with  milk  and  nectar,  and  honey 
distilled  from  the  rock.  From  the  Mosaic  paradise,  without 
doubt,  the  ancient  heathens  borrowed  their  ideas  of  the  gardens 
of  the  Ilesperides,  where  the  trees  bore  golden  fruit ;  and 
probably  also  of  the  gardens  of  Adonis,  a  name  which  seems 
evidently  derived  from  Aden  or  Eden.*  The  famed  Elysian 
fields  of  the  ancient  mythology,  with  their  glow  of  purple 
light,  and  their  perpetual  verdure  and  serenity,  are  a  mani- 
fest, though  corrupt  imitation  of  the  garden  of  Eden.  This 
was  the  opinion  of  the  great  Bochart,f  who  derives  the  word 
Elysius  from  the  Hebrew  "  alls," — ^joyful, — by  the  not  unusual 
change  of  a  into  e.  Thus  it  appears,  that  the  Elysian  field 
signifies  a  place  of  delight  or  joy,  a  meaning  entirely  coincident 
with  thai  of  Eden,  the  ga.^den  of  pleasure.  How  exactly  do 
these  heathen  descriptions  of  the  golden  age,  the  Hesperian 
gardens,  and  the  Elysian  fields,  reflect  the  beautiful  and 
splendid  images,  which  form  the  picture  of  the  paradisiacal 
state. 

Moses  states  concerning  our  first  parents,  that  they  were 
naked.:}:  Plato,  in  his  Politicus,  speaks  of  men  in  the  golden 
age  as  living  in  the  open  air,  naked  and  uncovered.  Moses 
mentions  the  conversation  between  the  serpent  and  Eve.§ 
Plato  speaks  of  men  in  the  primitive  times  holding  con- 
verse with  beasts.  The  tree  of  life  figures  conspicuously  in 
the  Mosaic  history. ||  There  can  be  little  doubt,  that  the 
ambrosia  of  the  ancients,  which  made  immortal,  and  their 
nectar,  which  made  young,  were  but  obscure  and  broken 
traditions  of  the  tree  of  life.  The  temptation  of  Eve  by  an 
evil  spirit,  under  the  form  of  the  serpent,  is  recorded  by 
Moses.l"     Stillingfleet,  in  the  3rd  book  of  his  Origines  Sacrae, 

*  See  Gale's  C.  of  G.  B.  Z.  C.  4;  Stillirgf.  Orig.  Sac.  B.  3.  C.  3  ;  and 
A.  Clarke  in  loc.  f  Can.  L.  i.  C.  34.  %  Gen.  ii.  25. 

g  Gen.  iii.  1.  [|  Gen.  ii.  9,  iii.  22,  24.  If  Gen  iii.  1. 


328  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

has  shown,  that  there  is  an  alkision  to  this  story  in  Pherecjdes 
Syrius's  account  of  the  war  of  the  giants  against  Saturn. 
The  reference  is  so  manifest,  that  Celsus,  the  early  antagonist 
of  Christianity,  grounds  upon  it  an  argument  to  prove,  that 
Moses  corrupted  and  altered  the  heathen  fables,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  framing  his  own  history  out  of  them. 

The  fall  of  man  is  narrated  at  length  by  Moses.*  In  his 
Critias,  Plato,  after  discoursing  of  the  "  divine  nature," 
which  belonged  to  man  in  the  golden  age,  adds  :  "  This  divine 
nature,  being  at  length  contempered  with  the  mortal  part  in 
man,  the  human  inclination  or  custom  prevailed,  even  to  the 
pestilential  infection  and  ruin  of  mankind  ;  and  from  this 
fountain  all  evils  rushed  in  upon  men,  who  tliereby  lost  the 
best  of  their  precious  things."  To  the  like  effect  he  discourses 
in  his  Theaetetus,  declaring  that  man  fell  from  his  original 
rectitude,  or  likeness  to  God,  into  a  kind  of  nothingness  and 
inhumanity. f  "Whence  could  Plato  derive  such  scriptural 
iiotions,  if  not  from  scripture  itself,  or  at  least  from  scriptural 
traditions  ?  Origen  does  not  doubt,  that  his  opinions  came 
from  this  source.  He  conceives,  that  Plato  learned  the  his- 
tory of  man's  fall  from  his  intercourse  with  the  Jews  in  Egypt, 
and  that  he  describes  it  under  an  allegorical  form  in  his  sym- 
posiacs.  Porus  (Adam),  feasting  with  the  rest  of  the  gods, 
and  becoming  drunk  with  nectar,  goes  into  Jupiter's  garden 
(Eden),  and  there  is  circumvented  and  led  into  sin  by  Penia 
(the  serpent).:}: 

This  parallel  between  sacred  and  profane  history,  as  it 
respects  the  subject-matter  of  both,  might  be  greatly  extended, 
whereby  it  would  yet  more  clearlj'  appear,  to  what  an  extent 
the  latter  has  borrowed  its  materials  from  the  former.  With 
these  brief  illustrations  of  the  subject,  however,  the  reader 
must  be  left  to  pursue  the  investigation  for  himself. 

Chronology  and   geography  have   been,    not  improperly, 

*  Gen.  iii.  f  Literally,  nianlessness,  want  of  manhood. 

J  See  Stillingf.  Orig.  Sac.  B.  3,  C.  3,  and  Gale  B.  3,  C.  5. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  329 

denominated  tlie  two  ejes  of  history.  Certainly,  nothing  is 
more  essential  to  clear  and  correct  historical  knowledge,  than 
that  the  events  lie  before  us,  in  their  due  order  of  time,  and 
their  proper  locality.  In  both  these  respects,  the  obligations 
of  pnjfane  to  sacred  history  can  hardly  be  overestimated. 

Ancient  chronology,  without  the  bible,  would  be  involved 
in  inextricable  confusion.  Clironological  inconsistencies 
abound  in  the  most  authentic  historians  of  antiquity.  Sir 
Isaac  Newton,  by  applying  his  powerful  mind  to  the  study  of 
the  scriptures,  has  detected  great  errors  in  the  chronology  of 
the  ancients.  It  is  only  by  a  rigid  adherence  to  tlie  scriptural 
standard  of  dates  and  eras,  as  Dr.  Hale*  has  well  said,  that 
the  historical  inquirer  can  hope  to  avoid  the  mazes,  the  deserts, 
and  the  quicksands  of  ancient  and  primeval  chronology,  in 
which  so  many  adventurers  have  been  swallowed  up  and  lost, 
by  following  the  ignus  fatuus  of  their  own  imagination,  or 
the  treacherous  glare  of  hypotheses.  That  the  scriptural 
account  of  times  is  the  fountain  and  measure  of  pagan  chro- 
nology, has  been  evinced  by  Eusebius,  Bochart,  Melancthon, 
Preston,  and  others.  Bochart  affirms  the  derivation  of  the 
Chaldean  chronology  from  the  sacred  annals  of  the  Hebrews. 
He  proves  his  assertion  thus.  Simplicius,  the  ablest  of  the 
ancient  commentators  on  Aristotle,  mentions  a  work  of  that 
philosopher,  in  which  he  states,  that  he  had  received  from 
his  pupil  Alexander  the  records  of  the  Chaldeans,  on  exam- 
ining which  he  found,  that  the  series  of  times  extended 
through  so  many  years  ;  which,  says  Bochart,  answers  to  the 
scripture  account  of  times.  One  great  design  of  Eusebius,  in 
his  Chronicon,  was  to  prove  the  traduction  of  ethnic  from 
sacred  chronology.  Melancthon  speaks  of  it  as  "  the  singular 
glory  of  the  church,  that  nowhere,  in  the  whole  mass  of  man- 
kind, there  can  be  found  a  more  ancient  series  of  empires  and 
times  ;  neither  has  any  other  nation  such  certain  numbers  of 
years  passed,  so  exactly  computed."     But  none  have  spoken 

*  New  Analysis  of  Chronology. 


330  COMMENT AKIES   ON   THE 

more  clearly  on  this  point  than  Preston,  in  his  third  Sermon 
on  the  Divine  Attributes.  "I  will  add  to  this,"  he  says, 
"  but  one  argument  for  the  authority  of  the  scripture.  Con- 
sider the  exact  chronology  which  is  found  in  the  scriptures, 
and  the  agreement  of  them  with  the  heathen  histories.  In 
latter  times  there  have  been  great  confusions  ;  but  the  great- 
est evidence  that  is  to  be  found,  is  the  table  of  Ptolemy  lately 
found,  which  doth  exactly  agree  with  the  scripture.  He 
exactly  sets  down  the  time,  that  Kebuchadnezzar  and  Cyrus 
reigned  ;  so  also  the  time  when  Jerusalem  w^s  taken ;  which 
compare  with  the  scripture,  and  you  shall  find  these  agree 
with  Daniel  and  Jeremiah.  And  this  is  the  greatest  testi- 
mony the  scripture  can  have  from  heathen  men."* 

Geography  is  the  other  eye  of  history.  There  is  ample 
proof,  not  only  that  scripture  geography  preceded  pagan,  but 
that  the  laiier  was,  in  great  part,  derived  from  the  former. 
Porphyry,  in  his  fourth  book  against  the  christians,  informs 
us,  that  Sanchoniathon  gave  an  account  of  places  conforma- 
ble to  that  of  Moses.  A  chief  design  of  Bochart,  in  his 
Phaleg,  is  to  evince  the  traduction  of  profane  from  sacred 
geography.  He  shows,  that  from  Japhet  (Gen,  10  :  2.)  the 
Grecians  referred  their  first  plantations  to  Japetus  ;  that  from 
Javan  (Gen.  10  :  2.)  they  derived  their  lonians ;  that  from 
Elisa  (Gen.  10  :  4.)  they  derived  their  Elis  and  Hellas  ;  that 
from  Kittim  they  named  a  city  in  Cyprus  Citium  ;  and  that 
from  Tarsis  (Gen.  10  :  4.)  came  Iberis,  or  Spain.  Many  other 
instances  he  gives  to  the  same  eftect ;  particularly  that  from 
Misraim  and  Ludim,  father  and  son,  (Gen.  10  :  13.)  Egypt 
and  Ethiopia  were  originally  called  by  those  names.  Con- 
formably to  this,  Diodorus  *  speaks  of  the  friendly  inter- 
course kept  up  between  the  Egyptians  and  Ethiopians,  and 
infers  from  it  their  near  relationship.  In  this  manner  has  this 
learned  man  and  distinguished  geographer  demonstrated  the 
identity  of  sacred  and  ethnic  geography.     In  the  preface  to 

«  Gale's  Court  of  the  Gentiles,  B.  3.  C.  2.  f  Lib.  3. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  331 

liis  Canaan,  he  gives  his  opinion  very  explicitly  thus  : 
"  Moses,  by  divine  revelation,  approved  himself  more  skilful 
in  geography,  than  either  Homer,  or  Hesiod,  or  any  of  later 
times  among  the  Grecians.  For  he  mentions  more  nations, 
and  those  more  remote  by  far.  [N'either  doth  it  suffice  him 
to  name  them,  but  withal  he  opens  their  original ;  showing 
us  in  what  age,  and  from  what  place,  and  upon  what  occa- 
sion, each  was  dispersed  into  countries  most  remote,  even, 
from  the  Caspian  and  Persian  seas  to  the  extreme  Gades ; 
and  all  this  in  one  chapter."  See  further  on  this  subject 
Gale's  Court  of  the  Gentiles,  B.  3.  C.  2,  and  Stillingfleet's 
Origines  Sacrae,  B.  3.  c.  4 ;  where  it  is  shown,  that  sacred 
geography  is  not  only  the  most  ancient,  exact,  and  certain, 
but  also  the  fountain  and  measure  of  pagan  geography.* 

Having  demonstrated  the  obligation  of  pagan  religion, 
poetry,  and  history  to  the  inspired  oracles,  I  proceed  to  make 
manifest  a  like  indebtedness  on  the  part  of  pagan  philosophy. 
This  is  a  vast  field,  affording  scope  for  an  extended  treatise 
in  itself.  A  mere  glance  is  all  the  attention  that  can  be  be- 
stowed upon  it  in  the  present  work. 

The  very  term  sojphoi^  wise  men,  philosophers,  among  the 
Greeks,  Heinsius  f  deduces,  without  the  least  doubt  of  the 
truth  of  the  etymology,  from  the  Hebrew  sojphim,^  watchmen. 
He  says,  that  both  the  Hebrews  and  the  Phenicians,  as  well 
as  the  Greeks,  called  their  learned  men  by  this  name,  be- 
cause they  were  accustomed  to  observe  the  motions  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  from  elevated  places. 

But  not  to  insist  upon  the  etymology  of  a  word,  as  of 
much  weight  in  the  argument,  let  us  attend  to  other  consid- 

*  "Moses  is  the  only  faithful  guide  in  the  history  of  the  first  peopling  of 

countries.     The  tenth  and  eleventh  chapters  of  Genesis  diffuse  more  light 

on  that  subject,  than  all  the  writings  of  profane  historians,  which,  on  this 

head,  are  nothing  but  a  heap  of  confusion,  conjectures,  and  contradictions." 

Gog.  Orig.  Laws,  B.  1.  c.  1.  Art.  5. 

t  Exeroit.  Sacr.  L.  1.  C.  2. 


33^'  COMMENTAKIES   ON   THE 

erations.  Three  general  circumstances  may  be  mentioned,  as 
affording  strong  presmnptive  evidence  of  the  obligations  of 
Grecian  philosophy  to  the  Hebrew  scriptures. 

The  first  circumstance,  on  which  this  conclusion  rests,  is 
the  fact,  that  Egypt  and  Phenicia,  themselves  large  recipi- 
ents of  the  precious  treasures  of  revelation,  were,  by  com- 
mon admission,  the  sources  of  Grecian  culture  and  learning. 
Up  to  the  period  when  the  empire  of  Jerusalem  was  destroy- 
ed by  Nebuchadnezzar,  Europe  had  remained,  to  a  great  de- 
gree, sunk  in  barbarism  and  ignorance.  At  this  time  part  of 
the  Jewish  nation  was  carried  captive  to  Babylon,  and 
another  large  portion  took  refuge  in  Egypt.  These  latter, 
after  the  restoration  of  their  brethren  by  Cyrus,  remained  in 
their  adopted  country,  where  they  built  a  temple,  publicly 
exercised  their  religion,  and  flourished  in  such  multitudes 
under  Alexander  and  his  successors,  as  almost  to  equal  those 
of  Judea  in  number,  wealth,  and  influence.  They  even  lost 
the  use  of  the  Hebrew,  and  adopted  the  Greek  tongue, — a 
language,  beyond  all  others,  copious,  expressive,  and  harmo- 
nious ; — qualities  which  caused  it  to  become  the  universal 
dialect  of  learned  men,  both  in  the  east  and  the  west. 

About  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  Greece  began 
to  emerge  from  the  depths  of  ignorance  and  rudeness,  in 
which  her  people  had  hitherto  been  sunk.  A  spirit  of  inquiry 
and  research  was  awakened.  Thales,  Anaximander,  Anaxa- 
goras,  Pherecydes,  Pythagoras,  Plato,  Herodotus,  and  a  host 
of  other  Grecian  philosophers  and  historians,  travelled  into 
•Egypt,  Chaldea,*  and  Phenicia ;  some  of  them  residing  in 
those  countries  for  a  long  series  of  years.  Here  they  became 
acquainted  with  the  more  cultivated  and  learned  of  the  Jews  ; 
saw  their  religion,  and  heard  their  conversations  on  the  origin 
of  the  universe,  on  the  power,  sovereignty,  spirituality  and 
unity  of  the  true  God ;  on  the  divine  providence  ;  on  moral 

*  See  the  Chron.  Tables  of  Marshall,  the  Univ.  Hist,  and  Bruok  Hist. 
Philos. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  333 

good  and  evil ;  on  human  duty  ;  and  on  other  topics,  con- 
nected with  religion  and  philosophy.  It  is  not  improbable 
that  some  of  them  saw  and  read  the  sacred  books  of  the 
Hebrews,  either  in  the  original  tongue,  or  the  Greek  translation, 
made  under  Ptolemy  Philadelphus. 

The  intercourse  between  Europe,  Asia,  and  Egypt  continued 
to  increase,  and  access  to  the  sacred  treasures  of  revelation 
became  more  and  more  practicable  and  common.  Mind  was 
stirred.  Thought  was  developed.  Inquiry  became  keen  and 
discursive.  A  thousand  scattered  rays,  emanating  originally 
from  the  sacred  volume,  were  concentrated,  in  a  blaze  of 
light,  on  the  little  promontory  of  Attica.  Literature,  philo- 
sophy, and  the  fine  arts  spread  rapidly  over  Greece,  and  were 
cultivated  with  an  ardor  unknown  in  any  other  age  or 
country.  Then  did  the  Greeks,  possessing  the  finest  genius, 
and  blessed  with  the  most  delicious  climate  and  picturesque 
scenery,  produce  those  immortal  works  in  poetry,  eloquence, 
history,  and  philosophy,  which  have  embalmed  their  memory ; 
which  have  become  universal  models  of  taste  and  composi- 
tion ;  and  which  have  constituted  the  solace  and  delight  of 
cultivated  minds,  in  every  age  and  nation  of  the  world. 

The  second  general  circumstance,  afibrding  ground  to  infer 
the  derivation  of  pagan  philosophy  from  sacred  sources,  is 
the  fact,  that  the  earlier  philosophers  delivered  their  instruc- 
tions, not  in  elaborate  systems,  which  is  the  form  they  would 
have  taken,  had  they  been  the  result  of  original  thought  and 
investigation  ;  but  in  pithy  sayings  and  unconnected  dogmas, 
the  very  method  they  must  have  adopted,  had  they  derived 
their  tenets  from  the  broken  fragments  and  records  of  Holy 
Scripture. 

The  third  circumstance  is,  that  the  higher  we  trace  the 
religious  opinions  of  the  philosophers,  and  the  popular  wor- 
ship of  Greece,  the  purer  and  more  uncorrupted  do  we  find 
them.  "  The  nearer  we  approach  to  the  sources  of  eastern 
tradition,  the  more  conspicuous  appears  the  radiance  of  that 


334:  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

heavenly  light  of  original  revelation,  whose  beams,  though 
clouded  and  dispersed,  still  contribute  to  enlighten  and 
direct  mankind ;  the  more  clear  traces  do  we  discover  of  that 
primeval  and  patriarchal  religion,  which  acknowledged  the 
existence  and  inculcated  the  worship  of  the  true  and  only- 
God.  We  find  no  mortals  yet  exalted  to  divinities,  no  images 
in  their  temples,  no  impure  or  cruel  rites."* 

The  testimonies  of  Jewish,  pagan,  and  christian  writers, 
adduced  in  a  former  part  of  this  chapter, f  and  the  presump- 
tive proofs  here  brought  forward,  are  sufficient  of  themselves 
to  warrant  the  belief,  that  Greece,  the  parent  of  pagan  letters 
and  arts,  Greece,  the  common  mistress  and  teacher  of  Europe, 
owed  the  best  part  of  her  wisdom  to  Judea.  But  that  which 
affords  incontestible  proofs  of  this  fact,  is  a  comparison  of 
the  maxims  of  her  philosophers  with  the  teachings  of  Holy 
Scripture.  This,  however,  is  a  labor  too  extensive  for  the 
present  work ;  and  unless  it  is  handled  at  length,  it  is  better 
not  to  touch  it  at  all.  Let  the  reader,  who  would  see  it  fully 
discussed,  with  all  the  authorities  bearing  upon  it  cited,  con- 
sult the  third  book  of  the  Aegyptiaca  of  "Witsius,  and  the 
whole  of  the  second  part  of  Gale's  Court  of  the  Gentiles.  It 
is  quite  possible,  indeed,  that  it  may  never  be  fully  known, 
how  far  the  Greeks  and  other  heathen  nations  were  indebted 
to  Moses  and  the  prophets  for  their  purest  ethical  doctrines, 
their  choicest  poetic  beauties,  their  finest  rhetorical  touches, 
their  loftiest  flights  of  eloquence,  their  wisest  maxims  of 
government,  and  their  sublimest  speculations  concerning  the 
divine  nature  and  human  duty.  Enough,  however,  is  known 
to  afford  solid  ground  for  the  opinion,  that  Judea  was  the 
birth-place  of  letters,  that  her  priests  were  men  of  learning, 
that  her  Levitical  cities  were  so  many  universities,  that  the 
scholars  of  other  countries  lighted  their  torch   in  Zion,  and 

*  Graves  on  the  Pent.  Pt.  3.  Lect.  5,  Sect.  2. 
t  Pp.  312  seqq. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  335 

that  the  altars  of  pagan  philosophy  caught  their  first  spark 
from  the  flame,  that  glowed  within  the  temple  of  Jerusalem.* 
It  remains  to  trace  the  influence  of  the  Mosaic  legislation 
on  government  and  law  in  succeeding  ages.  Grotius,  than 
whom  no  man  was  more  competent  to  express  an  opinion  on 
the  subject,  in  bis  Truth  of  the  Christian  religion,  says  : 
"  The  most  ancient  Attic  laws,  whence  iu  after  times  the 
Roman  were  derived,  owe  their  origin  to  Moses's  laws."  He 
expresses  the  same  opinion  in  his  treatise  on  the  Right  of 
War  and  Peace :  "  "Who  may  not  believe,  that,  seeing  the 
law  of  Moses  had  such  an  express  image  of  the  divine  will, 
the  nations  did  well  in  taking  their  laws  thence?  Which 
that  the  Grecians  did,  especially  the  Attics,  is  credible. 
Whence  the  Attic  laws  and  the  Roman  twelve  tables,  which 
sprang  thence,  bear  so  much  similitude  with  the  Hebrew 
laws."  The  similitude  between  the  Grecian  and  Mosaic  laws 
has  been  noticed  b}'-  many  learned  men  besides  Grotius  ;  as 
Josephus,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Augustin,  Selden,  Gale, 
Cunaeus,  Serranus,  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  and  Archbishop  Pot- ! 
ter.  This  last  mentioned  writer,  in  his  Grecian  Antiquities, 
has  traced  out  many  resemblances  between  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  legislation.  "  The  Athenians  had  a  prescribed  bill 
of  divorce,  and  so  had  the  Jews.  Among  the  Jews,  the 
father  gave  names  to  the  children  ;  and  such  was  the  custom 
among  the  Greeks.  The  purgation  oath  among  the  Greeks, 
strongly  resembled  the  oath  of  jealousy  among  the  Hebrews. 
The  harvest  and  vintage  festival  among  the  Greeks,  the  pre- 
sentation of  the  best  of  their  flocks,  and  the  oflering  of  their 
first  fruits  to  God,  together  with  the  portion  prescribed  to  the 
priests,  the  interdiction  against  garments  of  divers  colors, 
protection  from  violence  to  the  man  who  had  fled  to  their 
altars,  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  Greeks  had  cautiously 
copied  the  usages  of  the  Jews.  And  whence  was  it,  that  nc 
person  was  permitted  to  approach  the  altar  of  Diana,  who 

*  Comp.  Sprmg's  Discs,  on  the  Bib.  pp.  41,  42. 


836  COMMENTARIES   ON    THE 

had  touclied  a  dead  body,  or  been  exposed  to  other  causes  of 
impurity,  and  that  the  laws  of  Athens  admitted  no  man  to 
the  priesthood,  who  had  any  blemish  on  his  person,  unless 
from  the  institutions  of  Moses  ?  And  has  not  the  agrarian 
law  of  Lycurgus  its  prototype,  though  none  of  its  defects,  in 
the  agrarian  law  of  the  Hebrews  ?  Many  of  the  Athenian 
laws  in  relation  to  the  descent  of  property  and  the  prohibited 
degrees  of  relationship  in  marriage,  seem  to  have  been 
transcribed  by  Solon  from  the  laws  of  Moses.  Sir  Matthew 
Hale,  in  his  historj^  of  the  Common  Law  of  England,  affirms, 
'  that  among  the  Grecians,  the  laws  of  descent  resemble  those 
of  the  Jews.'  "^  The  law  of  the  Areopagites  against  acci- 
dental manslaughter,  which  punished  the  oifender  with  a 
year's  banishment,  is  manifestly  borrowed  from  the  Mosaic 
law  respecting  the  cities  of  refuge.f 

That  Plato's  ideal  republic  was,  in  many  of  its  principles, 
derived  from  the  Hebrew  constitution,  is  an  opinion  held  by 
many,  and,  as  would  seem,  on  good  grounds.  His  sacred 
college  of  conservators  of  the  laws,  composed  of  the  principal 
priests,  the  elders  of  the  people,  venerable  by  age  and  virtue, 
and  the  chief  magistrate  as  president,  was  a  clear  imitation 
of  the  Jewish  sanhedrim.  Isot  less  clearly  of  Jewish  origin 
was  his  law  respecting  the  election  and  approval  of  priests, 
requiring  that  they  be  perfect  and  legitimate.  From  the 
same  source,  evidently,  came  his  law  excommunicating  an 
offender,  who  had  been  guilty  of  striking  his  parent,  and  even 
forbidding  any  one  to  eat  and  drink  with  such  a  person,  lest 
he  should  thereby  be  polluted.  So  manifest  are  the  obliga- 
tions of  Plato  to  the  Mosaic  law,  that  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
apostrophizing  him,  exclaims,  "  But  as  for  laws,  whatever  are 
true,  as  also  for  the  opinion  of  God,  these  things  were  con- 
veyed to  thee  from  the  Hebrews.:j: 

*  Spring's  Disc,  on  the  Bib.  pp.  94,  95. 

f  Petit  de  Legibus  Atticis,  in  Gale,  B.  3.  c.  9. 

X  Gale,  B.  3,  C.  9. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  337 

If  the  Grecian  laws  can  be  traced  to  the  Hebrew  as  their 
fountain-head,  the  Koman  laws  must,  of  necessitj,  confess  a 
similar  origin.  The  twelve  tables,  a  work  concerning  whicli 
Cicero  declares,  that  he  prefers  it  alone  to  all  the  volumes  of 
the  philosophers,  were  confessedly  borrowed  from  the  Grecian 
legislation. 

Through  these  channels,  as  well  as  more  directly  from  the 
original  fountain,  the  principles  of  the  Mosaic  code  have 
found  their  way,  to  a  less  or  greater  extent,  into  the  jurispru- 
dence of  all  civilized  nations.  Sir  Matthew  Hale  has  traced 
the  influence  of  the  bible  generally  on  the  laws  of  England 
Sismondi  testifies,  that  Alfred  the  Great,  in  causing  a  repub- 
lication of  the  Saxon  laws,  inserted  several  statutes  taken 
from  the  code  of  Moses,  to  give  new  strength  and  cogency  to 
the  principles  of  morality.  The  same  historian  also  states, 
that  one  of  the  first  acts  of  the  clergy,  under  Pepin  and 
Charlemagne,  was  to  improve  the  legislation  of  the  Franks 
by  the  introduction  of  several  of  the  Mosaic  laws.*  Dr. 
Olaus  Rabenius,  formerly  professor  of  law  and  syndic  of  the 
university  at  Upsal,  informed  Michaelis,f  that,  until  recently, 
the  civil  law  of  Moses  had  been  a  jus  subsidiarum  in  Sweden, 
and  that,  although  it  is  no  longer  cited  in  the  courts,  there  ne- 
cessarily remain,  in  the  Swedish  jurisprudence,  many  vestiges 
of  its  former  authority.  The  civil  institutions  of  the  United 
States  are  pervaded  with  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  legislation. 
Equality,  liberty,  general  education,  social  order,  peace,  in- 
dustry, union,  and  the  reign  of  law  are  the  sources  of  our 
prosperity  and  happiness.  But  these  principles  are  the  very 
heart  of  the  Mosaic  constitution.  Upon  the  whole,  the  opin- 
ion of  Milman,  expressed  in  his  History  of  the  Jews,  seems 
well  considered  and  well  founded,  that  the  Hebrew  lawgiver 
has  exercised  a  more  extensive  and  permanent  influence  over 

*  Spring's  Obi.  of  the  World  to  the  Bib.  p.  96. 
\  See  Pref.  to  his  Com.  on  the  Laws  of  Moses. 

22 


338  COMMENTAKIES   ON   THE 

the  destinies  of  mankind,  than  any  other  individual  in  the 
annals  of  the  world. 

In  a  former  part  of  this  chapter  I  have  spoken  of  the 
genius,  taste,  and  literature  of  the  ancient  Hebrews.  Will 
the  reader  pardon  me  for  adding  here,  though  it  may  not  be 
exactly  in  place,  that  the  page  of  history,  science,  art,  and 
philosoph}',  is  not  unadorned  with  splendid  Jewish  names, 
that  have  tigured  since  the  canon  of  scripture  was  closed. 
Aben-Ezra,  Abarbanel,  Maimonides, — "  the  eagle  of  the 
synagogue,*' — Buxtorf,  Mendohlson,  and  Neander  were  men, 
of  whom  any  nation  might  boast.  The  proudest  glories  of 
old  Spain  were  in  a  great  measure  due  to  the  talent,  learning, 
and.  energy  of  the  Hebrew  race.  Never  did  rulers  make  a 
greater  mistake,  than  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  in  expelling 
that  people,  one  of  the  brightest  jewels  in  their  crown,  from 
their  dominions.  Karely  has  a  sublimer  moral  spectacle 
been  presented  to  the  world,  than  that  afforded  by  the  depar- 
ture, from  every  thing  most  dear  to  them,  of  so  vast  a  multi- 
tude, in  loyalty  to  the  faith  of  their  fathers.  Spain  had 
become  to  these  people  a  second  Palestine.  Its  charming 
climate,  its  fertile  fields,  and  the  unrivalled  beauty  of  its  land- 
scapes, had  caused  them  almost  to  forget  their  exile  from  the 
green  vales  and  vine-clad  hills  of  their  revered  fatherland. 
Yet,  rather  than  renounce  the  religion,  inherited  from  au 
illustrious  line  of  ancestors,  cheerfully,  courageously,  uncom- 
plainingly, did  they  leave  their  quiet  homes,  their  pleasant 
possessions,  their  hoarded  treasures,  and  the  sepulchres  of 
their  beloved  dead, — the  rich  generously  sharing  their  last 
dollar  with  the  poorest  of  their  brethren, — to  seek  a  country, 
they  knew  not  where ;  to  find  a  home,  perchance,  beneath 
the  inhospitable  billows,  or  on  the  more  inhospitable  shores, 
to  which  their  shattered  barks  might  be  driven. 

I  cannot  pass  in  silence  a  remarkable  peculiarity  in  the 
fortunes  of  this  remarkable  people.     "While,  under  the  pros- 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBKEWS.  339 

sure  of  causes  far  less,  both  in  number  and  malignity,  than 
those  to  which  the  Jewish  people  have  been  subjected,  the 
descendants  of  other  celebrated  nations  of  antiquity  have  so 
degenerated,  that  we  can  scarcely  recognize,  in  their  present 
character,  a  single  element  of  their  ancestral  greatness,  the 
Israelites  retain  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  genius, 
learning,  skill,  and  enterprise  of  their  remote  progenitors.  I 
cannot  help  sometimes  picturing  to  myself  what  sort  of  nation 
they  would  form,  if  the  scattered  remnant  of  their  tribes 
could  once  more  be  put  in  possession  of  their  own  country. 
They  would  carry  there  the  liberal  principles  and  indomitable 
energy  of  America,  the  commercial  ability  of  England,  the 
science  of  France,  the  learning  of  Germany,  the  arts  of  Italy, 
and  the  agricultural  skill  and  industry  of  the  dwellers  along 
the  shores  of  the  Black  Sea  and  in  the  fertile  basins  of  the 
Danube  and  the  Ehine.  They  retain,  in  their  dispersion  and 
after  so  many  centuries  of  oppression,  all  the  elements  of 
greatness  and  of  power,  out  of  which  to  frame  a  model  repub- 
lic, and  once  again  to  become  the  light  and  glory  of  the  world. 
Who  knows  whether  providence  has  not  some  such  splendid 
destiny  in  reserve  for  them?  Surely,  a  preservation  so  signal 
cannot  be  without  an  ultimate  object,  equally  remarkable, 
"Would  that  the  veil  were  removed  from  their  hearts,  and  they 
could  at  length  recognize,  as  one  day  they  will  assuredly 
recognize,  in  the  pure  and  gentle  Nazarene,  their  long  expect- 
ed Messiah !  If  the  casting  of  them  off  be  the  riches  of  the 
gentiles,  what  shall  the  receiving  of  them  be  to  the  christian 
church  but  life  from  the  dead  ? 

Why  should  a  people,  thus  honored  in  their  ancestry,  their 
history,  and  their  influence,  be  oppressed,  enslaved,  and  mal- 
treated by  Christian  nations  ?  These  live,  as  it  were,  upon 
the  patrimony  of  Israel,  and  yet  despise  and  revile  the  people, 
from  whom  they  received  their  inheritance.  Besides  the 
rights  of  our  common  nature,  which  belong  alike  to  all,  the 
Israelite   has   a   superadded  claim  to  the  consideration  and 


340  COMMENTAKIES   ON   THE 

gratitude  of  his  fellow-men,  arising  from  the  lustre  of  his 
name,  and  from  the  unequalled  benefits  which  his  nation  has 
conferred  upon  mankind.  Yet  in  most  countries  of  Christen- 
dom he  is  denied  the  privileges,  which  are  his  birthright  as  a 
man.  He  is  treated  as  if  he  had  neither  human  I'ights  nor 
human  feelings.  Ignorance,  prejudice,  and  superstition  sur- 
round him  as  with  an  adamantine  wall  of  civil  disabilities  and 
social  degradation.  In  Europe,  in  Africa,  and  in  Asia  I  have 
mjself  seen  him  insulted  and  abused  in  a  manner  that  caused 
the  blood  to  tingle  in  my  veins.  Let  us  thank  the  God  of 
Israel,  that  it  is  otherwise  among  us.  Let  us  rejoice,  that  in 
this  home  of  freedom  and  equality,  persecution  has  never  dis- 
turbed the  descendants  of  the  patriarchs  in  the  peaceful  retire- 
ment of  their  firesides,  and  that  exclusion  from  political 
rights  has  not  been  practised  towards  them.  Here  Jew  and 
Christian  stand  together  upon  the  same  platform  of  civil  and 
social  immunities.  May  we  not  hope,  that,  when  Jehovah 
shall  judge  the  nations,  he  will  in  mercy  remember  the  land, 
which  has  afforded  a  refuge  and  a  home  to  the  sons  of  Jaccb? 


LAWS   OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  34.1 


CHAPTER  YIII. 

Review  of  the  leading  Constitutions  of  Gentile  Antiquity,  -with   Bpecial 
reference  to  the  Question,  how  far  Civil  Liberty  was  secured  by  them.* 

The  obligation  of  mankind  to  the  Hebrew  legislation  was 
considered  in  the  last  chapter.  It  cannot,  however,  be  pro- 
perly appreciated,  without  a  brief  inquiry  of  the  kind  pro- 
posed in  the  present  chapter.  A  full  analjsis  of  even  the 
leading  constitutions  of  antiquity,  would  fill  more  of  my 
space,  than  can  be  spared  for  such  a  purpose.  A  glance  is 
all  that  can  be  attempted  ;  but  it  will  be  sufficient  to  convince 
us,  that  nowhere,  without  the  limits  of  Palestine,  was  there 

*  A  great  number  of  special  references  were  prepared  for  this  chapter ; 
but,  unfortunately,  they  have  been  mislaid  and  lost;  and  the  authorities 
are  not  now  before  me  for  re-examination.  Besides  the  more  common 
ancient  authors,  as  Aristotle,  Plato,  Xenophon,  Plutarch,  Herodotas, 
Thucydides,  iElian,  Cicero,  Livy,  Tacitus,  &c.,  the  principal  modern  au- 
thorities consulted  are  Salvador's  Histoire  des  Institutions  de  Moise  et  du 
Peuple  Hebreu,  Goguet  on  the  Origin  of  Laws,  Niebuhrs  Roman  History 
and  Lectures,  Adams's  Defence  of  the  Constitutions  of  Government  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  Montesquieu's  Spirit  of  Laws,  Potter's  Grecian 
Antiquities,  Puffendorf's  Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,  Barthelemy's  Ana- 
charsis.  Heeren's  Researches  on  Ancient  Greece,  Ferguson  on  the  Roman 
Constitution,  Gillie's  Greece,  and  De  Solme  on  the  English  Constitution. 
The  last  named  of  these  works  has  been  particularly  useful  to  me  in 
aflFording  an  insight  into  the  structure  and  working  of  the  Roman  policy, 
I  have  borrowed  much  from  him,  sometimes  using  his  very  words,  oftener 
condensing  the  substance  of  his  observations. 


343  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

to  be  found  a  rational,  well  poised  and  well  guarded  public 
freedom  ;  and  that  all  antiquity  does  not  afford  an  example 
of  a  state,  where  the  people  enjoyed  any  just  influence  in  the 
government,  till  we  come  to  the  Jewish  republic.  From  the 
earliest  ages,  mankind  have  been,  for  the  most  part,  governed 
by  arbitrary  power.  Even  where  a  seeming  exemption  from 
such  rule  has  been  secured  by  established  laws,  the  laws 
themselves  have  been  arbitrary  and  despotic ;  at  one  time 
extravagantly  severe,  at  another  as  extravagantly  indulgent, 
— the  mere  expression  of  individual  authority  and  caprice. 
Thus,  in  every  period  of  the  world's  history,  the  mass  of  hu- 
man beings  have  been  ruled  either  by  arbitrary  men  or 
arbitrary  laws. 

This  proposition,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  oriental  countries, 
needs  no  formal  proof.  Throughout  the  vast  regions  of  Asia, 
despotism,  absolute  and  unchecked,  has  been,  at  all  times,  the 
prevailing  form  of  government.  Dynasty  has  succeeded  to 
dynasty,  and  empires  have  arisen  upon  the  ruins  of  empires  ; 
but  no  change  has  elevated  the  people  to  a  share  in  the 
government,  or  brought  with  it  any  improvement  in  their 
condition,  except  so  far  as  such  improvement  has  resulted 
from  the  character  of  the  reigning  sovereign.  From  Nimrod 
to  Ninus,  from  Ninus  to  the  subversion  of  the  Persian  em- 
pire by  the  victorious  arms  of  Alexander,  whenever  the 
affairs  of  Asia  rise  to  our  view  on  the  troubled  bosom  of  his- 
tory, some  new  scene  of  capricious  or  vindictive  tyranny 
freezes  us  with  horror,  or  fires  us  with  indignation.  An  inci- 
dent occurred  in  the  history  of  Cambyses,  which  is  a  key  to 
the  polity  of  all  the  Asiatic  nations.  That  prince  wished  to 
marry  his  sister,  and  consulted  his  ministers  of  justice  on  the 
lawfulness  of  the  procedure.  The  interpreters  of  law  could 
find  no  statute  authorizing  such  an  act,  but  they  found  one 
which  permitted  the  kings  of  Persia  to  do  whatever  they 
pleased.  What  could  the  people  be  in  a  country  where  the 
sovereign,  as  Vv'as  the  case  in  Persia,  kept  sixteen  thousand 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  343 

and  eight  hundred  horses  for  his  private  use  ?  Xerxes  wrote 
to  mount  Athos  to  get  out  of  his  way  ;  ordered  the  Helles- 
pont to  be  scourged  for  daring  to  break  in  pieces  his  bridge 
of  boats ;  and  commanded,  that  the  builders  be  put  to  death, 
because  their  structure  was  unable  to  withstand  the  fury  of 
the  tempest.  Who  but  a  tyrant,  bereft  of  reason  through  the 
intoxication  of  power,  could  have  enacted  such  solemn  pue- 
rilities, such  revolting  atrocities  ?  Thus  has  it  ever  been  in 
the  east.  The  many  have  been  ground  down  into  hopeless 
degradation  to  pamper  the  pride  of  the  few.  Voluptuous- 
ness and  luxury  have  reigned  in  the  palaces  of  the  nobles ; 
poverty  and  wretchedness  have  deformed  the  hovels  of  the 
peasants. 

Leaving  the  countries  watered  by  the  Choaspes  and  the 
Tigris,  and  directing  our  observation  to  that,  which,  by  a  hap- 
py metaphor,  has  been  styled  the  gift  of  the  ITile,  we  undoubt- 
edly see  a  nation  less  devoted  to  war  and  cont.piest,  and  more 
proficient  in  agriculture  and  the  arts,  as  well  as  in  civil  polity 
and  law.  Yet  the  people  were  equally  without  authority  or 
influence  in  the  state.  Of  the  despotism  of  Egypt,  we  need 
no  other  proof,  than  her  very  ruins,  those  stupendous  and  im- 
perishable monuments,  whose  stability  rivals  that  of  nature 
herself.  Under  what  other  than  a  despotic  government,  could 
havo  been  constructed  her  pyramids,  her  temples,  her  palaces, 
hei  lake  Moeris,  four  hundred  and  fifty  miles  in  circumference, 
the  sole  product  of  human  industry,  and  her  mighty  labyrinth, 
before  whose  vastness  and  intricacy  Herodotus  stood  con- 
founded, and  which,  he  assures  us,  must  have  cost  more  than 
all  the  public  monuments  of  Greece  together.  Where,  but 
under  an  iron  despotism,  could  the  revenues  of  a  fishery, 
amounting  to  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  million  per  annum, 
have  been  appropriated  to  the  ladies  of  the  royal  household 
for  the  purchase  of  robes  and  perfumes?  The  institution  of 
caste,  or  hereditary  professions,  which  is  of  the  essence  of 
despotic  rule,  prevailed  in  full  rigor  in  Egypt.     For  the  rest, 


?A4:  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

what  sort  of  government  was  that,  where  tlie  priests  not  only 
bound  the  conscience  of  the  sovereign,  but  fettered  genius  by 
prescribing  a  model  for  every  work  of  art ;  where  involun- 
tary accidents  were  punished  as  premeditated  crimes  ;  where 
theft  was  actually  encouraged  and  rewarded  by  a  contrivanctj 
of  state;  and  where  it  was  less  dangerous  to  murder  a  man, 
than  to  kill  a  cat,  an  ibis,  a  hawk,  or  an  ichneumon, — the 
criminal,  in  this  latter  case,  being  invariably  seized  upon  by 
the  populace  and  torn  in  pieces. 

But  not  to  detain  the  reader  with  these  generalities,  let  us 
come  to  a  closer  study  of  the  Egyptian  institutiuns.  The 
government  of  Egypt  was  theocratic.  Its  laws  emanated 
from  the  gods.  The  j^ower  of  causing  the  gods  to  speak,  and 
the  right  of  interpreting  their  utterances,  belonged  to  the 
priests. 

The  state  was  divided  into  three  principal  castes, — the 
sacerdotal,  the  military,  and  the  vulgar.  The  first  of  these 
represented  intelligence,  the  second  symbolized  force,  and 
the  third  found  its  analogy  in  matter.  The  king,  in  a  change 
of  dynasties,  was  always  chosen  from  the  first  or  the  second 
class.  He  was  a  priest,  or  a  captain ;  never  a  man  of  the 
people.  The  people  had  no  voice  in  the  election.  The  suf- 
frages of  the  two  privileged  classes  were  not  of  equal  weight 
and  value.  The  priests,  less  in  number  than  the  M-arriors, 
balanced  this  disadvantage  by  the  greater  dignity  of  their 
rank.  The  vote  of  a  priest  of  the  first  order  was  equivalent 
to  the  votes  of  a  hundred  warriors  ;  of  a  priest  of  the  second 
order,  to  those  of  twenty  warriors;  and  of  a  priest  of  the 
third  order,  to  those  of  ten  warrioi'S.  If  in  any  case  the 
election  was  doubtful,  the  oracle,  which  spake  only  at  the 
dictation  of  the  priests,  decided  the  question.  If  the  king 
happened  to  be  taken  from  the  military  caste,  he  was  forth- 
with initiated  into  the  sacerdotal  caste,  which  spared  no 
pains  to  keep  him  ever  afterwards  subject  to  their  control. 
The  sacerdotal  class  made  the  laws ;  interpreted  them ;  pre- 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  346 

served  them  in  their  own  archives ;  and  cautiously  concealed 
them  from  all  eyes.  Thus  all  the  great  civil  dignities  of  the 
state,  all  the  magistracies,  all  the  professions  demanding  in- 
telligence, were  filled  by  themselves ;  they  could  be  filled  by 
no  others.  The  warriors,  in  time  of  peace,  performed  in 
rotation  certain  services  near  the  person  of  the  king.  In 
time  of  war,  they  were  assembled  by  his  order,  and  were 
recompensed  by  sharing  with  the  sacerdotal  caste  the  honor 
of  wearing  certain  badges  of  distinction.  The  people  were  a,. 
mere  herd.  They  enjoyed  neither  honors  nor  popsessions.1 
Under  secondary  divisions,  they  comprised  all  who  were\ 
devoted  to  agriculturaj,  mechanical,  and  commercial  pur- 1 
suits. 

Such  was  the  distinction  of  persons  under  the  Egyptian 
constitution.  Let  us  now  glance  at  the  distribution  of  pro- 
perty. 

The  soil  of  Egypt  was  divided  into  three  great  portions. 
One  of  these  belonged  to  the  sacerdotal  caste,  and  was  not 
subject  to  taxation.  Besides  this,  the  priests  received  in  the 
temples  each  his  portion  of  wine  and  sacred  viands,  so  that 
they  had  no  need  to  consume  upon  their  living  any  of  their 
own  private  goods.  Both  the  other  divisions  belonged  to  the 
king.  One  of  them  furnished  him  with  the  means  of  support- 
ing his  dignity  and  defraying  the  expenses  of  government. 
The  other  formed  the  appanage  of  the  soldiers,  to  each  of 
whom  was  allotted  a  certain  portion  of  ground,  which  was 
exempted  from  public  burdens.  But  it  did  not  belong  to 
him  in  fee  simple,  as  the  lands  of  the  priests  did  to  them. 
His  domain  could  be  changed,  or  even  taken  away  from  him 
wholly.  The  people  had  no  landed  estates  of  their  own. 
They  cultivated  the  lands  of  the  king,  the  priests,  and  the 
warriors. 

Such  were  the  leading  features  of  the  Egyptian  constitution. 
It  contained  no  principle  of  national  unity,  since  the  same 
state  comprehended  classes  as  distinct  as  difierent  races.     It 


346  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

contained  no  principle  of  social  equality,  since  all  bad  not  the 
right  to  do  the  same  things,  nor  to  reach  the  same  civil  dig- 
nities. It  contained  no  principle  of  civil  liberty,  since  men 
were  not  permitted  to  develope  their  faculties  in  the  manner 
best  adapted  to  their  individual  qualities,  and  most  agreeable 
to  their  personal  predilections. 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  Greece  ?  "Were  not  Sparta  and 
Athens  blessed  with  free  institutions?  I>id  not  civil  liberty, 
in  all  its  genial  influences,  find  a  home  in  those  illustrious 
states  ?  The  genius  of  liberty  did,  indeed,  for  a  tir,-ie,  hover 
over  those  sunny  regions,  like  the  dove  above  the  waste  of 
waters  ;  but,  like  her,  too,  she  found  there  no  rest  for  the  sole 
of  her  foot. 

The  great  aim  of  Lycurgus,  as  of  the  Cretan  lawgiver 
Minos,  whose  institutions  he  closely  imitated,  was  to  raise  u^) 
a  nation  of  invincible  warriors.  How  far  ci^'il  freedonj, 
according  to  any  jnst  notions  of  it,  was  enjoyed  by  the  Lace- 
demonians, will  appear  from  a  brief  statement  of  some  of  the 
leading  provisions  of  their  political  and  social  system.  I 
shall  not  weary  the  reader  with  a  detail  of  the  institutions  of 
Lycurgns ;  but  present  them  merely  in  outline. 

The  essential  defect  of  the  political  constitution  of  Sparta 
was  the  want  of  a  proper  balance  of  powers.-  The  constitu- 
tion, as  it  came  from  the  hand  of  Lycurgus,  recognized  three 
orders  in  the  government,  viz.  the  kings,  the  senate,  and  the 
assembly  of  the  people. 

Monarchy,  though  retained  in  name,  was  virtually  abolished. 
The  authority  of  the  kings  was  extremely  limited.  Their 
prerogative  was  confined  to  the  high-priesthood,  the  chief 
tnilitcU-y  command,  and  the  presidency  of  the  senate.  They 
were  but  the  first  citizens  of  the  state  ;  and  their  will,  as  it 
would  seem,  was  far  from  having  a  predominating  influence 
in  the  public  affairs.  They  had  no  negative  on  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  senate.  As  presidents  of  the  body,  they  had 
simply  a  vote,  like  the  other  senators  ;  or,  as  some  say,  two 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  34.7 

votes.  This  was  the  extent  of  their  power,  which,  one  may 
see  at  a  glance,  was  weak  and  greatly  circumscribed. 

The  senate,  instituted  by  Lycurgus,  consisted  of  twenty- 
eight  members,  besides  the  kings.  They  held  their  office  for 
life.  The  whole  executive  power  of  the  state  was  in  the 
hands  of  this  body.  Almost  the  whole  legislative  power  was 
entrusted  to  it  likewise.  As  all  laws  must  originate  here, 
they  had  a  perfect  negative  before  debate.  To  the  assembly 
of  the  people  belonged  the  right  of  ratifying  or  rejecting  laws 
proposed  to  them  by  the  senate.  But  they  must  do  this 
without  debate.  All  deliberation  was  expressly  forbidden  to 
them.  They  could  not  even  assign  a  reason  for  their  vote.  A 
simple  aye  or  no  was  all  that  was  allowed.  Surely,  the  sub- 
stance of  political  power  was,  by  this  arrangement,  wholly 
taken  away  from  the  people ;  and  only  a  faint  shadow  of  it 
left  to  them.  But  perhaps  they  possessed  an  effective  check 
in  the  privilege,  accorded  to  them  by  the  constitution,  of 
choosing  the  senators  ?  ISTot  at  all.  The  senators  were,  in- 
deed, elective  by  the  votes  of  the  people  in  their  legislative 
assemblies.  But  as  their  office  was  for  life,  and  as  the  in- 
fluence of  kings  and  senators  would  be  commonly  used  with 
great  unanimity  in  favor  of  the  eldest  son,  to  fill  up  a  vacancj 
made  by  the  death  of  his  father,  and  as  the  people  were  not 
permitted  to  debate,  their  choice  was  probably  little  more 
than  a  consent  by  acclamations  to  a  nomination  made  by  the 
senate ;  and  so  this  body  came  to  be  much  the  same  thing  as 
an  hereditary  house  of  peers.  The  consequence  of  all  this 
was  to  render  the  senators  absolute  masters  of  the  legislature. 
Moreover,  to  the  senate  belonged  the  trial  of  the  most  import- 
ant judicial  questions,  and  particularly  all  such  as  were  of  a 
capital  nature.  Here,  then,  we  have  nearly  all  the  powers 
of  the  state, — legislative,  judicial,  and  executive,  collected 
into  one  centre;  and  that  centre  an  irresponsible  body  of 
nobles. 

The  government  was  little  short  of  a  pure  oligarchy.     The 


348 


COMMENTAEIES    ON    THE 


power  of  the  nobility  soon  exhibited  itself  as  too  strong  and 
absolute.  Plato  says,  that  it  was  exercised  with  such  violence 
and  wantonness,  that  it  wanted  a  bridle.  And  this  curb  was. 
in  effect,  subsequently  imposed  upon  it  by  the  appointment 
of  five  magistrates,  called  ephori ;  a  magistracy,  instituted  to 
defend  the  rights  of  the  people  against  the  tyranny  of  the 
nobles,  and  furnishing  the  model  after  which  that  of  the  tri- 
bunes of  Rome  was  afterwards  formed. 

Thus  it  is  seen  at  a  glance,  how  defective,  how  ill-balanced, 
how  utterly  wanting  in  popular  sympathy,  and  how  little 
likely  to  be  permanent,  this  famous  constitution  was.  It 
failed  in  the  essential  particular  of  the  balance.  "Nor  would  it 
have  lasted  for  any  considerable  period,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
would  have  been  speedily  annihilated,  if  it  had  not  been  ac- 
companied and  supported  by  a  social  system,  which,  while  it 
strikingly  displayed  the  genius  and  sagacity  of  the  lawgiver, 
destroyed  all  the  real  merit  of  his  celebrated  institution, 
making  of  it  one  of  the  most  horrible  despotisms,  that  has 
ever  cursed  mankind.  Some  of  the  more  important  elements 
of  this  system  were  the  banishment  of  gold  and  silver ;  the 
prohibition  of  travel  and  all  intercourse  with  strangers ;  the 
interdiction  of  arts ;  the  discouragement  of  science  and  let- 
ters ;  the  public  meals  ;  the  incessant  martial  exercises  ;  and 
the  doctrine,  that  parents  should  not  be  entrusted  with  the 
education  of  their  own  children,  since  every  man  was  the 
property  of  the  state.  It  is  not  the  usual  custom  of  legisla- 
tors to  regulate  the  manners  by  positive  laws.  But  the  code 
of  Lycurgus  embraced,  not  only  the  civil  polity  and  general 
police  of  the  state,  but  the  private  conduct  of  the  citizens  as 
well.  Nothing  was  free  at  Sparta,  not  even  the  most  indiffer- 
ent actions.  Food,  dress,  the  style  of  architecture,  the  inter- 
course of  a  marj-iod  man  with  his  wife,  the  kinds  of  business, 
amusements,  and  the  very  topics  of  conversation,  were  all 
regulated  by  law.  The  clothing  must  be  the  same  in  summer 
and  winter.    The  children  were  restricted  to  a  single  garment, 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  349 

and  slioeis  and  stockings  were  a  luxury,  wbicTi  they  were  never 
permitted  to  enjoy.  One  slender  meal  a  day  was  all  that  was 
allowed  tliem.  The  food  of  all  was  coarse  and  spare ;  corpu- 
lency was  a  high  crime.  To  the  young  grave  questions  were 
continually  proposed,  which  they  must  answer  quickly  and 
justly,  or  they  were  beaten  without  mercy.  Well  did  the 
witty  Alcibiades,  when  certain  Lacedemonians  boasted  to 
him  of  their  contempt  of  death,  reply, — "I  do  not  wonder  at 
it ;  it  is  the  only  means  you  have  of  freeing  yourselves  from 
the  perpetual  irksomeness  and  constraint,  which  are  caused 
by  the  life  you  are  obliged  to  lead." 

To  this  austere  life  the  Spartans  were  condemned,  from  the 
moment  of  their  birth.  The  kings  themselves  enjoyed  no 
exemption  from  it.  Plutarch  relates  an  incident,  which 
affords  a  striking  proof  of  this.  King  Agis  had  returned  from 
an  expedition,  in  which  he  had  gained  a  brilliant  victory  over 
the  Athenians.  Desiring  to  sup  with  his  wife,  he  asked,  that 
his  portion  might  be  sent  home.  His  request  was  denied, 
and  he  was  obliged  to  go  and  eat  his  supper  at  the  public 
tables.  Piqued  at  this  severity,  he  neglected  the  next  day  to 
offer  the  sacrifice  usual  on  occasions  of  victory ;  and  a  fine  was 
in  consequence  imposed  upon  him  to  punish  his  resentment. 

The  rigor  of  the  Spartan  discipline  made  the  people  con- 
tract a  harsh,  cruel,  and  even  ferocious  character.  Proofs 
mnumerable  of  this  fact  might  be  cited.  Weak  and  deformed 
children  they  cast  without  pity  into  a  deep  cavern  at  the  base 
of  Mount  Taygetns.  The  unrelenting  severity  of  the  Spar- 
tans towards  their  conquered  enemies  is  well  known.  "Witness 
their  horrid  barbarities  in  Athens,  a  city  dear  to  all  Greece. 
If  the  testimony  of  Xenophon  is  to  be  believed,  they  there 
put  to  death  more  persons  in  eight  months  of  peace,  than  the 
enemies  had  killed  in  thirty  years  of  war.  How  exquisite 
was  their  cruelty  towards  their  four  hundred  thousand 
wretched  Helots !  Personal  beauty  in  a  slave  was  a  crime 
punishable  with  death.    Every  slave  received  annually  a  cer- 


350  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

tain  number  of  lashes,  just  to  remind  him  of  his  bondage  and 
his  obligation  to  obedience.  No  master  could  give  freedom 
to  a  slave,  however  much  he  might  desire  to  do  so.  A  cap 
and  coat  of  dog-skin  or  sheep-skin  was  all  the  clothing  they 
were  allowed.  They  were  often  compelled  to  drink  to  intoxi- 
cation, and  then  to  sing  mean  songs  and  dance  ridiculous 
dances,  that  so  they  might  afford  to  the  Spartan  youth  an  ex- 
hibition of  what  drunkenness  was.  And  what  shall  I  say  of 
an  institution,  called  by  ancient  authors  the  ambuscade  ?  No 
wonder  that  this  institution  gave  to  Plato  a  bad  impressioi 
of  Lycurgus  and  his  laws.  Every  year  the  governors  of  the 
youth  selected  the  boldest  and  most  sagacious  of  them,  fed 
them  like  stalled  oxen  for  some  time  to  increase  their  ferocity, 
armed  them  with  daggers,  and  furnished  them  with  several 
days'  provisions.  Thus  prepared  and  equipped,  they  were 
sent  to  the  fields,  where  they  concealed  themselves  in  the 
day-time,  to  sally  forth  at  night,  and  slaughter  all  the  miser- 
able Helots,  whom  they  encountered. 

But  the  very  offspring  of  the  Lacedemonians  were  the 
objects  of  a  most  unnatural  severity.  At  the  annual  festival 
of  Diana,  all  the  children  in  Sparta  were  whipped  till  their 
blood  ran  down  upon  the  altars  of  the  inhuman  goddess. 
The  innocent  victims  often  expired  under  this  cruel  ceremony, 
while  their  own  fathers  and  mothers  stood  by,  exhorting  them 
to  bear  the  scourging  without  uttering  a  single  cry  of  distress, 
or  giving  the  least  sign  of  pain.  Brutality  is  too  mild  a  term 
for  this  pretended  fortitude ;  nor  do  I  know  a  word,  which 
will  adequately  express  its  dark  and  terrible  enormity.  Hu- 
man nature  starts  back,  petrified  and  aghast,  from  a  spectacle, 
than  which  incarnate  demons  could  have  contrived  nothing 
more  monstrous  and  revolting.  But  I  will  not  further  pursue 
the  odious  and  sickening  detail.  Morality,  humanity,  and  all 
the  comforts,  refinements,  elegancies,  and  pleasures  of  life 
expired  under  this  stern  and  frigid  system.  Every  thing  was 
sacrificed  to  the  one  absorbing  passion  of  military  glory.     To 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  351 

call  this  people  either  happy  or  free,  is  an  abuse  of  language. 
Their  happiness  was  that  of  the  tiger,  watching,  seizing,  or 
devouring  his  prey ;  their  liberty,  that  of  a  man  chained  in  a 
dungeon, — the  liberty  of  remaining  as  he  is.  Population,  the 
surest  criterion  of  national  freedom  and  felicity,  diminished  to 
such  a  degree,  that  at  length  not  more  than  one  thousand 
families  of  the  old  Spartans  remained,  while  nine  thousand 
foreigners  had  come  in,  despite  all  their  prohibitory  laws. 

Beyond  a  doubt,  the  constitution  of  Lycurgus  preserved 
the  independence  of  his  country  throughout  a  long  series  of 
ages.  Beyond  a  doubt,  it  produced  a  race  of  warriors  and 
politicians,  brave,  martial,  prudent,  firm  in  their  maxims, 
constant  in  their  designs,  and  skilled  in  the  military  art, 
above  all  the  people  of  Greece.  But  here  our  admiration 
must  pause.  At  this  point  our  eulogy  must  turn  to  censure. 
In  making  his  people  such  as  here  described,  Lycurgus 
stripped  them  of  all  the  gentler  attributes  of  humanity,  and 
made  them  put  on  the  fierceness  of  wild  beasts.  From  the 
best  study  I  have  been  able  to  give  to  his  polity,  I  cannot  re- 
gard it  otherwise  than  as  a  frightful  and  unrelenting  despotism. 
There  is  no  tyranny,  like  the  tyranny  of  law.  A  despot  may 
relent ;  but  law  is  inexorable.  A  despot  may  die,  and  be 
succeeded  by  a  prince  of  milder  temper  and  juster  views ; 
but  law  is  permanent,  and  knows  no  such  fortunate  casualties. 

But  does  not  Athens  afford  some  relief  to  this  picture  ? 
Undoubtedly  she  does ;  and  yet  her  citizens  can  hardly  be 
said  to  have  enjoyed  the  blessings  of  true  liberty.  Her 
constitution  was,  without  doubt,  suflSciently  popular;  yet, 
like  that  of  Sparta,  it  failed  in  the  balance. 

From  the  first,  the  Athenians  were  strongly  inclined  to 
democracy.  Though  their  government  was  regal,  absolute 
monarchy  was  unknown,  as  a  legal  constitution.  The  power 
of  making  laws  never  formed  a  part  of  the  royal  prerogative. 
Even  Homer,  in  his  catalogue  of  the  Grecian  forces  at  the 
eriege  of  Troy,  distinguishes  the  Athenians  by  the  name  of 


352  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

"  people."  This  desigriation  makes  apparent  the  early  pro- 
clivity of  the  Athenians  to  democratic  government,  and  shows, 
that  the  principal  authority  was  already  in  the  hands  of  the 
people.  After  the  death  of  Codrus,  the  seventeenth  king  of 
Athens,  a  dispute  arose  between  his  two  sons,  Medon  and 
]S"elius,  which  gave  the  Athenians,  impatient  of  the  name  ot 
king,  a  pretext  for  abolishing  royalty.  Jupiter  was,  by  a 
decree  of  the  people,  made  sole  sovereign  of  Athens.  Medon 
was  chosen  chief  magistrate,  with  the  title  of  archon.  The 
office  was  at  first  hereditary,  and  for  life.  Twelve  hereditary 
and  perpetual  archons  followed  Medon,  and  governed  Athens 
for  a  period  of  three  hundred  and  thirty-one  years.  But  the 
perpetual  archonship  was  too  vivid  an  image  of  roj^alty  to 
suit  the  democratic  temper  of  the  Athenians.  It  was,  there- 
fore, abolished,  and  the  term  of  office  limited  to  ten  years. 
Even  this  limitation  did  not  satisfy  the  Greeks,  nor  produce 
tranquility.  The  restless  spirit  of  democracy  at  length 
reduced  the  term  to  one  year,  and  substituted  nine  archons 
in  the  place  of  one. 

The  archons  were  not  all  of  equal  dignity.  The  first  in 
rank  represented  the  majesty  of  the  state,  was  honored  with 
the  title  of  archon,  and  gave  his  name  to  the  civil  year.  The 
second,  under  the  name  of  king,  was  the  head  of  religion. 
The  third  was  styled  polemarch,  and  was  chief  of  the  military 
affairs.  The  other  six  were  called  thesmothetes.  They  were 
guardians  of  the  laws,  and  acted  as  judges  in  the  ordinary 
courts  of  justice.  Legislation  was  in  the  assembly  of  the 
people.  The  archons  were  commonly  chosen  by  lot;  but 
sometimes  the  people  claimed  the  right  of  naming  them. 

The  annual  elections  only  increased  the  disorders  of  the 
state.  Liberty,  as  often  happens,  was  confounded  with 
licentiousness.  Intestine  broils  never  ceased.  Factions 
arose  every  day.  All  order  and  harmony  M^ere  at  an  end. 
Athens    was   upon   the  brink   of  ruin.    The  turbulence   of 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  353 

democracj  and  the  perpetual  fluctuations  of  law  became  at 
length  insufi'erable. 

The  people  in  their  distress,  applied  to  Draco  to  frame  a 
new  code  of  laws.  Draco  was  a  man  of  illustrious  birth  and 
distinguished  virtue,  but  of  little  ability  as  a  statesman.  lie 
was  wholly  unequal  to  the  task  of  reforming  a  political  con- 
stitution, and  of  introducing  an  improved  code  of  jurispru- 
dence. Ilis  temper  was  hard  and  austere.  There  appears 
to  have  been  little  in  his  laws  remarkable,  beyond  the  ex- 
treme rigor  of  their  penalties.  Every  infraction  of  them  was 
punished  with  death  ;  a  severity,  which  defeated  the  very 
end  in  view,  since  it  rendered  them  incapable  of  execution. 

Thus  the  remedy  proved  worse  than  the  disease;  and  a 
few  years  afterwards,  Solon,  a  man  of  true  genius  and  states- 
manship, was  summoned,  by  the  unanimous  voice  of  his 
countrymen,  to  take  the  helm,  and  right  the  tottering  ship  of 
state.  To  this  labor  he  addressed  himself  with  consummate 
ability ;  but  he  was  in  the  end  obliged  to  confess,  that  the 
task  was  beyond  his  powers.  His  constitution,  he  said,  was 
not  the  best  in  itself,  but  the  best  that  the  Athenians  would 
bear.  This  acknowledgement  is  a  key  to  his  method  of  pro- 
cedure. His  endeavor  was  to  adapt  his  laws  to  the  people, 
rather  than  the  people  to  his  laws.  His  polity  was  exceed- 
ingly complex.  Yet  it  failed  to  establish  an  equilibrium  of 
powers,  with  adequate  and  effective  checks  upon  each  other. 
The  balance  was  wanting.  It  is  not  necessary  to  go  into  a 
detailed  analysis  of  his  constitution.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that, 
knowing  how  jealous  his  countrymen  were  of  their  liberty 
and  independence,  he  bent  his  main  endeavor  to  curb  the 
restless  spirit  and  restrain  the  overgrown  power  of  de- 
mocracy. 

One  of  the  checks,  which  he  introduced  into  the  constitu- 
tion, was  the  division  of  all  the  citizens  into  four  classes, 
upon  a  property  basis,  and  the  restriction  of  all  the  offices 
and  dignities  of  the  state  to  the  first  three,  tlat  is  to  say,  to 


854:  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

the  rich ;  though  he  allowed  to  each  of  the  members  of  the 
fourth  class  a  vote  in  the  assembly  of  the  people.  This  would 
seem,  ut  first  view,  an  inconsiderable  privilege ;  but  it 
proved,  in  the  end,  to  be  a  formidable  power.  As  the  right 
of  trying  appeals  from  the  civil  courts,  the  right  of  inter- 
preting the  laws,  which  had  the  defect  of  being  written  with 
much  obscurity,  and  the  right  of  peace  and  war,  of  making 
treaties,  and  of  regulating  commerce  and  finance,  as  well  as 
the  right  of  general  legislation,  were  vested  in  this  body,  the 
people  were  absolute  masters  of  the  state.  All  authority  was 
centred  in  them,  and  the  government  was  a  pure  demo- 
cracy. 

Another  check,  which  Solon,  sensible  of  the  evils  of  such 
a  constitution,  imposed  upon  the  power  of  the  multitude,  was 
the  institution  of  a  senate  of  four  hundred.  This  body  he 
made  the  great  council  of  the  state,  and  clothed  it  with  very 
high  powers.  The  most  important  of  its  functions  was  the 
preparation  of  business  for  the  assembly  of  the  people.  It 
was  a  law  of  Solon,  that  nothing  should  come  before  the  peo- 
ple in  their  assemblies,  which  had  not  first  been  debated  and 
approved  in  the  senate.  If  this  law  had  been  always  observ- 
ed, it  would  have  made  the  senate  a  balance  of  a  very  effec- 
tive kind,  and  would  have  given  greater  steadiness  to  the 
public  administration,  and  a  more  prolonged  existence  to  the 
commonwealth.  But  the  senate  had  no  absolute  negative  ; 
and  without  such  a  check,  a  popular  assembly  is  as  mucii 
disposed  to  overleap  constitutional  and  legal  barriers,  as 
kings  and  nobles  are.  In  effect,  demagogues  were  never 
wanting  at  Athens,  to  remind  the  people,  that  all  authority 
"was  lodged  in  their  hands  ;  and  in  point  of  fact,  they  claim- 
ed and  exercised  all  the  powers  of  the  state,  whenever  they 
thought  fit,  brushing  away  the  laws  of  Solon,  like  so  many 
cobwebs. 

A  third  check,  introduced  by  Solon,  was  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  Areojjagi.is,  shorn  of  its  ancient  glories  by  the 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  iibO 

laws  of  Draco,  with  enlarged  powers  and  dignities.  Tiiis 
august  court  was  made  the  guardian  of  the  laws,  the  keeper 
of  the  public  treasure,  the  superintendent  of  education  and 
morals,  and  indeed  the  inspector-general  of  the  whole  state. 
So  high  was  its  reputation  for  wisdom  and  justice,  that  Cicero 
said,  that  Athens  could  no  more  be  governed  without  the 
areopagus,  than  the  world  without  the  providence  of  God. 
From  it  alone  there  lay  no  appeal  to  the  assembly  of  tlie 
people.  This  court  was  certainly  a  most  important  check  to 
the  rashness  and  haste  of  the  multitude ;  nevertheless,  even 
here,  if  the  people  chose  to  interfere,  there  was  no  balancing 
power  in  the  constitution  to  restrain  their  despotic  will.  So 
that,  as  we  still  see,  the  whole  power  of  the  state  was  collect- 
ed into  one  centre,  and  that  centre  was  the  people  in  their 
general  assembly. 

One  further  check  Solon  sought  to  impose  upon  the  power 
of  the  democracy.  "  The  urgent  necessity  for  balances  to  a 
sovereign  assembly,  in  which  all  authority,  legislative,  execu- 
tive and  judicial,  was  collected  into  one  centre,  induced 
Solon,  though  in  so  small  a  state,  to  make  his  constitution  ex- 
tremely complicated.  'No  less  than  ten  courts  of  judicature, 
four  for  criminal  causes,  and  six  for  civil,  besides  the  areopa- 
gus and  general  assembly,  were  established  at  Athens.  In 
conformity  to  his  own  saying,  celebrated  among  those  of  the 
seven  wise  men,  that  the  most  perfect  government  is  that, 
where  an  injury  to  any  one  is  the  concern  of  all,  he  directed, 
that  in  all  the  ten  courts,  causes  should  be  decided  by  a  body 
of  men,  like  our  juries,  taken  from  among  the  people ;  the 
archons  only  presiding,  like  our  judges.  As  the  archons 
were  appointed  by  lot,  they  were  often  but  indifferent  lawyers, 
and  chose  two  persons  of  experience  to  assist  them.  These 
in  time  became  regular  constitutional  officers,  by  th3  name 
of  assessors.  The  jurors  were  paid  for  their  service,  and  ap- 
pointed by  lot.  This  institution  of  juries  for  the  trial  of 
causes  is  the  glory  of  Solon's  laws.     It  is  that  department. 


356  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

which  ought  to  belong  to  the  people  at  large.  They  are  most 
competent  for  this ;  and  the  property,  liberty,  equality, 
and  security  of  the  citizens,  all  require,  that  they  alone 
should  possess  it.  Itinerant  judges,  called  the  forty,  were 
appointed  to  go  through  the  counties,  to  determine  assaults, 
and  civil  actions  under  a  certain  sum." 

But,  notwithstanding  the  checks  and  balances  thus  embo- 
died in  his  constitution,  the  work  of  Solon  proved  a  failure. 
His  two  anchors,  as  he  called  the  senate  and  the  areopagus, 
proved  too  weak  to  hold  the  vessel  of  state  amid  the  storms 
which  assailed  it.  The  former  had  no  share  in  the  legislative 
department  of  the  government ;  and  the  latter,  itself  depen- 
dent upon  the  people,  could  not  resist  the  waves  of  popular 
commotion.  Within  ten  years  from  the  establishment  of  his 
constitution,  Solon  had  the  mortification  of  seeing  Pisistratus 
sole  master  of  his  beloved  Atliens,  with  a  body-guard  to 
attend  him,  after  the  manner  of  the  Persian  sovereigns. 

The  question  is,  did  this  constitution,  or  could  it,  secure  to 
the  citizens  the  enjoyment  of  civil  liberty  ?  We  ai*e  con- 
strained to  answer  in  the  negative.  In  a  state,  where  the 
whole  body  of  the  people,  convened  in  general  assembly,  are 
the  legal  sovereign,  the  government  must  be  irregular,  con^ 
fused,  contradictory,  and  often  tyrannical.  Unchecked  by 
an  effective  balancing  power,  lodged  in  fewer  hands,  a  power. 
possessing  an  absolute  veto,  it  is  not  properly  the  rule  of  a 
sovereign,  but  of  a  mob  ;  and  it  must  partake,  more  or  less, 
of  the  fluctuations  and  injustice  of  mob  law.  This  is  the 
judgnieiit  of  reason  ;  and  it  is  verified  in  the  history  of 
Athens.  Not  unfrequently  the  magistrates  proceeded  in  much 
tlie  same  manner  as  they  now  do  among  the  Turks.  Let  the 
following  instance  serve  as  an  illustration.  A  barber  in  the 
Piraeus,  who  had  spread  the  news  of  the  defeat  of  the  Athe- 
nians in  Sicily,  on  the  authority  of  a  person  who  came  into 
his  shop,  was  put  to  the  torture  by  command  of  the  archons, 


LA.WS   OF    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  357 

oecause  he  could  not  tell  the  name  of  the  person  who  had 
communicated  the  intelligence  to  him. 

The  remark  of  Cicero  was  perfectly  just,  that  the  rashness 
and  licentiousness  of  the  popular  assemblies  ruined  the 
republics  of  Greece  ;  to  which  Goguet,  with  equal  truth,  has 
added,  "particularly  that  of  Athens."  The  x\thenians  were 
always  impetuous,  always  rash,  always  fickle,  always,  in  a 
word,  the  sport  of  the  demagogues  who  ruled  them.  This . 
last  expression  is  a  key  to  the  whole  political  history  of 
Athens.  A  government,  in  which  every  citizen  has  the  right 
to  vote  in  making,  interpreting,  and  executing  the  laws,  nnist, 
it  would  seem,  be  the  beau  ideal  of  a  free  constitution.  The 
argument  in  support  of  this  view  would  run  somew^hat  after 
this  fashion  :  "  A  man  who  contributes  by  his  vote  to  the 
passing  of  a  law,  has  himself  made  the  law.  In  obeying  it, 
he  obeys  himself;  he  therefore  is  free."  But  this  is  not 
reasoning  ;  it  is  merely  playing  upon  words.  His  vote  is  but 
one  of  a  thousand,  perhaps  ten  thousand.  He  has  had  no 
opportunity  to  examine,  deliberate,  state  objections,  suggest 
restrictions,  or  propose  amendments.  He  has  only  been 
allowed  to  express  his  assent  or  dissent.  And  in  doing  this, 
it  is  a  hundred  to  one  but  he  has  been  led  by  some  intriguing 
aspirant  for  power  and  place.  The  multitude,  absorbed  in 
the  care  of  providing  the  means  of  subsistence,  have  neither 
the  time  nor  the  knowledge  necessary  for  functions  of  this 
nature.  Besides,  nature,  sparing  of  her  gifts,  bestows  upon 
comparatively  few  an  understanding  equal  to  the  complicated 
business  of  legislation.  As  a  sick  man  trusts  to  his  physician, 
and  a  client  to  his  lawyer,  so  the  greater  part  of  a  popular 
legislative  assembly  must  trust  to  those  who  have  more  abili- 
ties than  themselves.  These,  wholly  taken  up  with  the 
thoughts  of  their  own  power,  live  but  to  increase  it.  Yersed 
in  the  management  of  public  affairs,  foreseeing  the  most  im 
portant  consequences  of  measures,  and  having  exclusive  con 
trol  of  the  springs  of  government,  they  offer  propositions 


358  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

make  spceclies,  present  facts  and  arguments  which  there  is 
no  time  to  examine,  conceal  what  is  designed  to  promote  their 
own  private  views,  by  joining  it  to  things  which  they  know 
will  be  acceptable  to  the  people,  employ  skilfully  all  the  com- 
mon places  of  rhetoric,  and  so  are  enabled  to  gain  ever  to 
their  side  the  majority  of  votes,  in  almost  every  proposal 
which  they  make.  So  that,  in  the  end,  what  is  proclaimed 
as  the  general  will,  is,  in  reality,  nothing  more  than  the  effect 
of  the  artifices  of  a  few  cunning  men,  who,  exalting  over 
their  success,  deride  in  secret  the  sottishness  of  the  people, 
whom  they  had  flattered  in  public,  only  to  mislead  and  betray 
them.  This  is  an  exact  account  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
public  affairs  were  managed  at  Athens,  where  legislation 
would  often  have  been  wiser  and  more  beneficial  to  the  state, 
if  it  had  been  determined  by  the  casting  of  dice,  than  by  the 
suffrages  of  the  multitude. 

The  truth  is,  as  Goguet  has  well  said,  we  are  too  much  accus- 
tomed to  view  the  Athenians  on  their  favorable  side.  We  are 
struck  with  the  shining  images  of  the  history  of  Athens,  and 
imposed  upon  by  its  lustre.  We  are  dazzled  by  the  victories 
of  Marathon  and  Salamis,  by  the  pomp  of  the  spectacles,  by 
the  taste  and  magnificence  of  the  public  monuments,  by  that 
crowd  of  great  men,  who  will  render  the  name  of  Athens 
forever  precious  and  memorable.  IS'evertheless,  when  we 
examine  the  interior  state  of  this  republic,  far  different  scenes 
present  themselves.  We  see  a  state  in  incessant  combustion, 
assemblies  always  tumultuous,  a  people  perpetually  agitated 
by  factions,  hurried  away  by  first  impressions,  and  abandoned 
to  the  impetuous  eloquence  of  unprincipled  orators.  Virtue 
was  proscribed  at  Athens,  and  the  most  eminent  public  ser- 
vices were  not  only  forgotten,  but  often  punished  by  the  ostra- 
cism. Well  did  Valerius  Maximus  exclaim,  "  Happy  Athens, 
after  such  unjust  treatment,  still  to  have  found  citizens,  wlio 
loved  their  country." 

An  absolute  democracy,  like  that  of  Athens,  and  a  repre- 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  359 

sentative  lepublic,  like  that  of  Judea,  are  governments,  as 
wide  asunder  as  the  poles.  In  Athens,  the  people  held  and 
exercised  all  power, — legislative,  executive,  and  judicial, — 
subject  to  no  effective  restraint  or  responsibility.  It  was  a 
government  of  will,  rather  than  of  law.  Its  leading  principle 
was,  "  stat  pro  ratione  voluntas."  The  only  reason  which  it 
rendered  for  its  actions,  was,  "  sic  volo,  sic  jubeo,  sic  veto." 
It  was  a  despotism,  as  pure  and  absolute  as  that  of  Nero; 
and,  in  practice,  it  always  proved  itself  as  capricious  and  ty- 
rannical. Licentiousness  there  was  at  Athens,  without  doubt ; 
but  not  true  civil  liberty.  These  are  so  far  from  being  iden- 
tical, that  the  one  is  contrary  to  the  other,  and  destructive  of  it. 

The  Roman  constitution  next  demands  our  attention.  The 
ghost  of  Romulus,  we  are  told  by  Livy,  soon  after  his  disap- 
pearance from  among  men,  revisited  the  distinguished  senator, 
Proculus  Julius,  and  addressed  him  thus :  "  Go  tell  my  coun- 
trymen, it  is  the  decree  of  heaven,  that  the  city  I  have 
founded  shall  become  the  mistress  of  the  world.  Let  her  cul- 
tivate assiduously  the  military  art.  Then  let  her  be  assured, 
and  transmit  the  assurance  from  age  to  age,  that  no  mortal 
power  can  resist  the  arms  of  Rome."  How  faithfully  Rome 
obeyed  the  spirit  of  this  counsel,  let  her  colossal  power  under 
the  Caesars  inform  us,  when  the  significations  of  her  will 
were  obeyed  throughout  the  vast  regions,  that  stretch  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Ganges,  and  from  Siberia  to  the  Great 
Desert.  Whatever  other  merit  may  be  denied  to  regal,  repub- 
lican, or  imperial  Rome,  none  will  ever  dispute  her  title  to  be 
regarded  as  a  perfect  model  of  a  predatory  state. 

How  far  civil  liberty  was  secured  by  the  Roman  constitu- 
tion, and  what  degree  of  power  and  authority  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  public  affairs  belonged  to  the  Roman  people,  will 
appear  in  the  progress  of  these  inquiries. 

A  full  analysis  of  the  Roman  constitution  is  not  proposed. 
The  innumerable  stages  through  which  it  passed  in  its  devel- 
opment, render  such  analysis  a  work  of  great  difficulty,  and 


300  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

M'OTild  demand  more  space  than  can  be  given  to  this  or  any 
other  of  the  topics  embraced  in  this  preliminary  book.  Nor 
is  it  required  by  the  end  I  liave  in  view  ;  my  object  being 
•rather  to  point  out  the  defects  of  the  constitution,  so  far  as 
guaranties  of  public  liberty  were  concerned,  than  to  analyze 
the  constitution  itself. 

The  reader's  attention  is  first  invited  to  the  constitution  of 
the  Roman  comitia.  The  comitia  were  assemblies  of  the 
people,  convened  for  the  purpose  of  electing  officers,  or  enact- 
ing laws.  The  comitia  were  not  a  simple  body,  nor  did  they 
vote  in  a  uniform  way.  They  were  of  three  sorts,  according 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  votes  were  taken.  Sometimes 
they  voted  by  curiae,  sometimes  by  centuries,  and  sometimes 
by  tribes. 

But  this  needs  explanation.  It  is  to  be  premised,  that  the 
ancients  did  not  vote  as  individuals,  but  as  corporations. 
Thus  the  Athenians,  from  the  earliest  times,  were  accustomed 
to  vote  in  tribes,  four  of  which  would  be  outvoted  by  six, 
although  the  number  of  individuals  in  the  six  might  be  much 
smaller  than  that  of  the  four.  This  method  of  voting  coi're- 
sponds  to  that  authorized  by  our  constitution,  whenever  the 
election  of  a  president  of  the  United  States  happens  to  de- 
volve upon  the  house  of  representatives.  The  representatives 
do  not,  in  that  case,  vote  in  their  individual  capacity,  but  ac- 
cording to  states  ;  and  a  state  with  fifty  representatives  would 
have  no  more  voice  in  the  election,  than  a  state  having  but  a 
single  representative. 

It  was  in  accordance  with  this  principle,  that  all  popular 
votes  were  given  in  ancient  Rome.  Yet,  as  already  stated, 
there  were  diflt'erent  manners  of  voting.  By  the  constitution 
of  Romulus,  the  Roman  people  were  divided  into  two  tribes, 
called  Ramnes  and  Tities,  the  form.er  consisting  of  the  origi- 
nal citizens,  and  the  latter  of  tlie  Sabines,  who  were  subse- 
quently incorporated  into  the  body  of  the  state.  A  constitu- 
tion, which  allowed  only  these  two  tribes  to  vote,  would  have 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  361 

given  rise  to  difficulties,  since  it  would  often  nappen,  tbat 
one  tribe  wished  a  thing,  which  the  other  opposed,  and  hence 
would  have  resulted  endless  collisions  and  fends.  How  was 
this  difficulty  obviated  ?  In  the  following  manner.  Each 
tribe  was  divided  into  a  hundred  associations,  called  gentes ; 
and  each  gens,  again,  consisted  of  several  families,  forming 
in  itself  a  small  state,  with  many  peculiar  rights,  called  jus 
gentium  and  jura  gentium.  They  resembled  the  tribes  of 
the  Arabs  and  the  clans  of  Highlanders  of  Scotland.  But 
between  the  division  into  tribes  and  gentes,  there  was  an- 
other, named  curiae,  of  which  there  were  ten  in  a  tribe. 
They  answered  to  the  orders  at  Cologne,  and  to  the  classes 
in  the  Lombard  towns.  Each  curia  was  a  tenth  part  of  a 
tribe,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  included  in  itself  ten  gentes. 
The  membership  of  a  curia  implied  special  religious  duties, 
and  conferred  the  right  of  voting  in  comitia.  Thus  the  curiae 
stepped  into  the  place  of  the  tribes.  A  third  tribe  under  the 
name  of  Luceres,  composed  of  Albans  and  other  foreigners, 
was  formed  by  Tullus  Hostilius,  and  was  admitted  to  the  full 
franchise  in  the  reign  of  Tarquinius  Priscus.  The  number  of 
tribes  was  -afterwards  increased  by  Servius  Tullius  to  thirty. 

Servius  also  made  another  division  of  the  people,  for  politi- 
cal purposes,  into  six  classes,  upon  a  property  basis.  The 
first  class  consisted  of  persons,  whose  estates  in  res  corpo- 
rales,  that  is,  land,  slaves,  cattle,  metal,  farming  imple- 
ments, and  the  like,  amounted  to  about  $2000 ;  the  second, 
to  $1500 ;  the  third  to  $1000 ;  the  fourth  to  $500  ;  the  fifth 
to  $250  ;  and  the  sixth  included  all  those  whose  property  fell 
below  the  last  named  sum.  The  six  classes  were  subdivided 
into  one  hundred  and  ninety-three  centuries.  Ninety-eight 
of  these,  a  clear  majority  of  the  whole,  were  comprehended 
in  the  first  class ;  twenty-two,  in  the  second ;  twenty,  in  the 
third ;  twenty-two,  in  the  fourth ;  and  thirty,  in  the  fifth ; 
while  the  whole  of  the  sixth  class  formed  but  a  single  cen- 
tury.    As  the  voting  was  by  centuries,  the  lowest  class  had 


3G2  COMMENTARIES    CN    THE 

but  one  vote,  though  no  other  class  contained  so  large  a 
number  of  individuals  as  this.  The  centuries  composing  the 
first  class  were  entitled  to  a  priority  in  voting.  If  they 
voted  unanimously,  as  in  fact  they  commonly  did,  the  ques- 
tion was  decided.  In  that  case,  the  remaining  centuries 
did  not  vote  at  all.  If  the  votes  of  the  first  class  did  not 
determine  the  question,  the  other  centuries  went  on  voting, 
till  a  majority  was  obtained.  As  soon  as  that  happened,  the 
voting  ceased.  So  that  the  great  body  of  the  Roman  people, 
in  the  comitia  centuriata,  had  the  barren  honor  of  a  casting 
vote,  in  case  of  a  tie  in  the  ballots  of  the  higher  classes.  It 
any  thing  in  the  nature  of  political  power  can  be  conceived 
more  shadowy  than  this,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  imagine  what  it  is. 
Tlie  object  of  the  whole  institution  seems  to  have  been  to 
give  to  a  very  small  minority  a  decisive  influence  in  the 
state.  Wealth  and  birth  had  all  the  power,  while  numbers 
were  of  little  account. 

It  has  been  mentioned  above,  that  Servius  Tullius  in- 
creased the  whole  number  of  tribes  to  thirty,  four  of  which 
belonged  to  the  city,  and  twenty-six  to  the  circumjacent 
country.  This  institution,  however,  must  not  be  confounded 
with  that  of  the  three  tribes  named  above.  Each  tribe  had  a 
magistrate  called  tribunus  (tribune),  chosen  by  the  members 
of  the  tribe.  The  tribes  were  composed  only  of  plebeians. 
At  first  the  comitia  of  the  tribes  had  no  legislative  power ; 
they  could  only  elect  their  own  oflScers,  and  make  arrange- 
ments concerning  their  local  interests.  An  important  power 
was  conferred  upon  the  assembly  of  the  tribes  by  Servius, 
viz.  the  right  of  trying  appeals  from  judgments  of  condemna- 
tion pronounced  by  a  magistrate  against  plebeians.  The 
patricians  had  long  possessed  the  privilege  of  appeal,  in  such 
cases,  to  th3  assembly  of  the  curiae.  The  functions  of  the 
comitia  of  the  tribes  were  gradually  enlarged,  till  at  length 
they  obtained  an  important  share  in  the  business  of  legisla- 
tion. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  363 

Thus  we  have,  in  this  constitution,  three  distinct  opecies 
of  popular  assemblies, — the  comitia  curiata,  the  comitia  cen- 
turiata,  and  the  comitia  tributa.  The  assemblies  of  the 
curiae  and  the  centuries  formed  an  aristocracy ;  that  of  the 
tribes,  a  democracy.  As  it  was  not  with  any  precision  de- 
termined by  law  what  should  be  done  in  the  several  assem- 
blies, and  as  the  patricians  and  plebeians  did  not,  therefore, 
balance  each  other  by  regular  checks,  the  administration  of 
the  state  became  a  continual  scene  of  contradictions.  The 
centuries  alone,  in  which  the  high-born  and  the  rich  had  an 
undoubted  majority,  as  well  as  in  the  senate,  had  for  a  long 
time  the  authority  of  making  laws.  The  plebeians  denied 
the  legislative  authority  of  the  senate ;  and  the  senate  in  like 
manner  denied  the  right  of  the  tribes  to  make  laws.  Justice 
required,  that  the  plebeians  should  have  a  share  in  the  enact- 
ment of  laws.  But,  instead  of  becoming  a  co-ordinate  branch 
of  the  legislature,  instead  of  aiming  at  a  concurrent  authority 
with  the  senate  and  the  comitia  of  the  centuries,  or,  which 
would  have  been  better  still,  with  the  senate  and  consuls,  as 
distinct  branches  of  the  legislative  department,  they  obtained 
a  separate  and  independent  power  of  legislation.  Hence  the 
intricacy  of  his  constitution ;  hence  three  distinct  sources  of 
laws,  decrees  of  the  senate,  acts  of  the  centuries,  and  resolu- 
tions of  the  tribes ; — a  jDcrpetual  fountain  of  division  and 
tumult. 

The  word  liberty  is  one  of  those  terms,  which  have  been 
most  misunderstood,  or  misapplied.  Writers  have  repre- 
sented, that  no  people  can  be  free,  who  do  not  expressly  enact 
their  own  laws.  Thus  Rousseau,  in  his  Social  Contract,  says, 
that  the  people  of  England  are  much  mistaken  in  thinking 
themselves  free ;  they  are  free  only  during  the  election  of 
members  of  parliament ;  as  soon  as  these  are  elected,  the 
people  are  slaves  ;  they  are  nothing.  He  here  commits  the 
egregious  blunder  of  confounding  a  mere  function  of  govern- 
ment with  a  constituent  part  of  liberty.     The  patricians  and 


864:  30MMENTARIES   ON   THE 

senate  of  Eomej  who  were  always  the  real  masters  of  the 
state,  sensible  that  their  own  tyranny  would  be  at  an  end 
under  a  lawful  authority  entrusted  to  a  single  ruler,  had  the 
address  to  persuade  the  people,  that,  provided  those  who  ex- 
ercised a  despotic  power  over  them,  and  who  every  day 
heaped  wrongs  and  insults  upon  them,  were  called  consuls, 
dictators,  senators,  patricians,  military  tribunes,  or,  indeed, 
received  any  appellation  other  than  that  horrid  and  hated 
one  of  king,  they  were  free,  and  that  these  empty  titles  might 
wisely  be  purchased  at  the  price  of  every  calamity.  This 
they  were  able  to  accomplish  by  occasionally  performing  the 
illusory  ceremony  of  assembling  the  people,  that  they  might 
make  a  show  of  consulting  them.  They  made  them  believe, 
according  to  the  doctrine  of  Eousseau  just  cited,  that  liberty 
consisted  in  the  mere  giving  of  votes,  no  matter  how  great 
the  disadvantage  in  ^he  manner  of  giving  them  might  be,  and 
no  matter  how  much  the  law  might  afterwards  be  neglected 
or  violated,  which  was  thus  pretended  to  be  made  in  common. 
But  how  false  and  deceptive  are  all  such  ideas  !  True  liberty 
consists  in  the  security  of  j^ersons  and  property,  so  that 
every  man,  while  he  respects  the  persons  of  others,  and 
suffers  them  to  enjoy  in  quietness  the  fruits  of  their  industry, 
is  certain  that  he  himself  will  be  permitted  to  enjoy  the  same 
blessings  at  the  hands  of  his  fellow-citizens.  To  concur  by 
our  votes  in  the  enactment  of  laws,  is  to  enjoy  a  certain 
degree  of  power ;  to  live  in  a  state,  where  the  laws  are  equal 
for  all,  and  where  they  are  sure  to  be  executed  with  modera- 
tion and  fairness,  is  to  be  free.  But  that  is  a  wretched  ser- 
vitude, call  it  by  what  name  you  will, — democracy  or  aristo- 
cracy, a  republic  or  a  despotism, — where  the  laws  are  partial, 
uncertain,  fluctuating,  and  feebly  and  irregularly  admin- 
istered. 

The  relation  of  debtor  and  creditor  in  the  Koman  com- 
monwealth was  one  of  extreme  hardship  and  severity. 
Mammon  prevailed  as  much  in  ancient  Rome  as  in  some 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT    3EBREWS.  365 

modern  countries.  Avarice  raged  like  a  fiery  furnace  in  the 
bosom  of  patrician  creditors.  Private  rapine  was  added  to 
political  ambition.  The  laws  allowed  exorbitant  interest  for 
the  use  of  money.  An  insolvent  debtor  might  by  the  decree 
of  the  judge,  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  his  creditor,  by 
whom  he  might  be  scourged,  tortured,  or  put  to  death  at 
discretion  ;  the  most  aristocratic  and  detestable  law  ever 
known  among  men.  The  severity  of  the  actual  law  was 
very  oppressive,  but  it  was  aggravated  by  being  altogether 
one-sided ;  for  when  a  patrician  was  in  pecuniary  difficulty, 
his  clients  were  under  obligation  to  assist  him,  whereas 
plebeians,  being  obliged  for  the  most  part  to  borrow  from 
patricians,  enjoyed  no  such  advantage.  So  tenacious  were 
these  haughty  and  avaricious  nobles  of  all  the  rigor  of  their 
power  over  debtors,  that  Yeturius,  the  son  of  a  consul,  who 
had  been  reduced  by  poverty  to  the  necessity  of  borrowing 
money,  was  delivered  up  to  his  creditor,  who  exacted  from 
him  all  the  services  of  a  slave,  the  senate  refusing  to  grant 
any  relief.  This  law  was  so  execrable,  so  diabolical,  one 
might  almost  say,  that  an  attempt  to  get  rid  of  it  at  almost 
any  rate  would  have  been  a  virtue. 

The  oppressions  growing  out  of  this  law  were  the  occasion 
of  instituting  the  office  of  tribunes  of  the  people.  And 
what  did  the  Roman  people  gain  by  this  institution  ?  In 
reality  very  little.  The  first  tribunes  can  scarcely  be  called 
a  magistracy  even  of  the  commonalty.  Certainly  they  were 
not  a  magistracy  of  the  state.  ^N^eibuhr  represents  their  po- 
sition as  analogous  to  that  of  a  modern  ambassador,  whose 
duty  it  is  in  a  foreign  state  to  protect  the  subjects  of  his  own 
sovereign.  The  Roman  tribunes  had  not  sufficient  power  for 
the  efiective  protection  of  the  commonalty.  They  had  only 
enough  to  head  every  popular  tumult,  and  to  blow  into  a 
flame  every  spark  of  popular  discontent.  If  the  number  had 
been  three  hundred,  instead  of  three,  and  they  had  formed  a 
representative  assembly,  with  power  to  propose  laws,  delibe- 


366  COMMENT AKIES   ON   THE 

rate,  amend,  and  improve,  that  would  have  been  a  real  ad- 
vance, and  would  have  constituted  an  effective  balance.  But 
the  tribunes  had  no  right  to  propose  any  law,  or  move  any 
resolution.  They  could  only  forbid  such  measures  as  they 
deemed  injurious.  The  legislative  authority  vested  in  the 
people  was  not  delegated  to  their  tribunes.  These  func- 
tionaries had  power  to  conclude  nothing.  The  people 
reserved  to  themselves  the  right  of  ratifying  any  resolutions 
taken  by  them.  This  circumstance  rendered  the  institution 
of  tribunes  in  the  issue  totally  ineffectual ;  for  the  advan- 
tages which  accrue  to  the  people  from  the  appointment  of 
representatives  are  quite  inconsiderable,  unless  they  at  the 
same  time  wholly  entrust  to  them  their  legislative  authority. 
In  the  present  case,  the  Koman  people,  fondly  cherishing  a 
chimerical  appearance  of  sovereignty,  endeavored  to  settle, 
with  a  hundred  thousand  votes,  things,  which  would  have 
been  better  settled  by  the  votes  of  their  representatives,  and 
so  defeated  the  very  object  of  their  appointment.  But  how 
and  why  ?  Thus.  The  consuls,  senators,  dictators,  and 
other  great  men  of  the  state,  whom,  as  De  Lolme  aptly 
says,  the  people  were  prudent  enough  to  fear,  and  simple 
enough  to  believe,  continued  to  mix  with  them,  and  play  off 
their  political  artifices.  They  made  speeches  ;  changed  at 
pleasure  the  place  and  form  of  the  public  assemblies  ;  dis- 
solved the  comitia,  whenever  it  suited  their  purposes,  under 
pretext  that  the  auspices  were  unfavorable  ;  conferred  upon 
the  consuls,  when  they  despaired  of  success  by  other  means, 
absolute  power  over  the  lives  of  the  citizens;  or  even  ap- 
pointed a  dictator,  in  whom  all  the  powers  of  the  state  were 
centred.  Sometimes  they  falsely  accused  the  tribunes  before 
the  assembly  itself;  at  other  times,  they  artfully  slandered 
them  in  private,  and  so  deprived  them  of  the  confidence  of 
the  Komans.  In  this  manner  the  people  were  brought  to  see, 
without  concern,  the  murder  of  Tiberius  Gracchus,  a  true 
patriot,  a  virtuous  citizen,   and  the  only  Roman,  who  truly 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  367 

loved  tliem.  In  this  manner  Cains  Graccns,  who  could  not 
be  deterred,  even  by  his  brother's  fate,  from  imitating  his 
brother's  generosity,  saw  himself  in  the  end  so  utterly  for- 
saken by  the  people,  that  not  one  of  them  would  lend  him  a 
horse  to  fly  from  the  fury  of  the  nobles.  Often  the  patricians 
fomented  divisions  among  the  plebeians,  and  kept  moderate 
men  from  attending  the  comitia  by  rendering  them  scenes 
of  tumult  and  confusion.  In  a  word,  that  nothing  might  be 
wanting  to  their  aristocratic  insolence,  they  sometimes  falsified 
the  n  amber  of  votes  in  declaring  them,  and  even  carried 
off  the  urns,  into  which  the  citizens  were  to  cast  their  suf- 
frages. And  all  these  things  happened,  not  in  those  dege- 
nerate ages,  when  one  half  of  the  people  were  made  to  arm 
themselves  against  the  other  in  the  comitia,  but  in  what  is 
commonly  esteemed  the  best  period  of  the  republic,  the  times 
immediately  preceding  and  following  the  third  Punic  war. 
If,  when  the  tribuneship  was  instituted,  a  representative 
assembly  of  the  commonalty  had  been  formed,  with  powers 
corresponding  to  those  of  the  English  house  of  commons  or 
the  American  house  of  representatives,  how  different  wonld 
have  been  the  history  of  Koman  liberty !  The  distinction 
between  a  representative  constitution  and  a  popular  consti- 
tution is  well  stated  by  De  Lolme.  According  to  him,  a  re- 
presentative constitution  j^laces  the  remedy  in  the  hands  of 
those  who  feel  the  disorder,  while  a  popular  constitution 
places  the  remedy  in  the  hands  of  those  who  cause  it.  In 
the  former  case,  the  care  of  repressing  the  invasions  of  j^ower 
is  committed  to  the  men  who  suffer  from  them,  in  the  latter, 
to  the  men  who  practise  them. 

But  there  was  a  deeper  and  more  radical  defect  in  the 
Roman  constitution  ;  a  defect  inherent  in  political  organiza- 
tions of  that  sort ;  a  defect,  which  struck  at  the  very  vitals  of 
the  public  liberty.  The  tribunes  were  faithless  to  their  trust, 
and,  human  nature  remaining  as  it  is,  they  could  scarcely  be 
otherwise.     Under  a  constitution  like  that  of  Eome,  it  was 


368  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

impossible  that  the  peoi3le  should  have  faithful  defenders. 
They  could  not  show  a  preference  for  a  man,  without  attack- 
ing his  virtue.  They  could  not  elevate  him,  without  losing 
him.  They  could  not  lavish  their  favors  upon  him,  without 
sending  him  to  swell  the  number  of  their  enemies.  As  soou 
as  their  favorites  saw  themselves  in  a  condition  to  control 
power,  they  became,  from  that  very  circumstance,  its  defen- 
ders. They  were  beyond  the  reach  of  oppressions  themselves ; 
why  should  they  care  to  restrain  them  ?  By  so  doing  they 
would  but  lessen  a  power  which  they  hoped  would  one  day 
be  their  own.  How  could  it  be  expected,  that  men,  who 
aspired  to  be  praetors,  consuls,  and  senators,  would  be  zealous 
to  limit  the  powers  belonging  to  those  offices  ?  In  point  of 
fact,  they  were  not;  and  their  long  contest  with  the  patricians 
■was  not  a  struggle  for  general  liberty,  but  a  scramble  for  dig- 
nities, emoluments,  and  power.  This  was  the  only  end  they 
ever  pursued  with  sincerity  and  perseverance.  They  never 
employed  the  power  of  the  people  for  things  really  beneficial 
to  the  people.  They  never  set  bounds  to  the  exorbitant  and 
despotic  power  of  the  magistrates.  They  never  repressed 
that  class  of  citizens,  who,  however  great  their  crimes,  knew 
how  to  secure  an  immunity  from  punishment.  They  never 
sought  to  regulate  the  judicial  power.  But  these  are  precau- 
tions, without  which  nations  may  struggle  to  the  end  of  time, 
and  they  will  never  attain  true  liberty.  The  judicial  power 
especially  is  a  sure  criterion  of  the  goodness  of  government ; 
and  this,  at  Eome,  was  always  a  mere  instrument  of  tyranny. 
Consuls,  praetors,  dictators,  tribunes,  and  senators  seem  all  to 
have  been  clothed  with  the  power  of  life  and  death.  While 
such  infamous  monsters  as  Yerres  and  Piso  were  for  the  most 
part  secure  against  the  danger  of  punishment,  they  themselves 
could,  through  mere  wantonness  and  cruelty,  cause  the  inferior 
citizens  of  Kome  to  be  scourged  with  rods,  and  even  put  to 
death  upon  the  cross.  And  what  can  we  say  of  the  personal 
rights  of  the  weaker  members  of  society,  in  a  state  where  the 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBEEWS.  369 

.aw  regarded  children  as  tilings  rather  than  as  persons,  as  a  part 
of  the  furniture  of  the  family  mansion,  which,  like  any  other 
part  of  it,  the  head  of  the  family  might  remove,  sell,  or  de- 
stroy, at  his  discretion  ;  where  a  father,  through  sheer  caprice, 
could  compel  his  married  daughter  to  repudiate  a  husband^ 
whom  she  tenderly  loved,  and  whom  he  himself  had  approved  ; 
and  where  a  wife  was  considered,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  as 
the  daughter  of  her  husband,  who  might  retain  or  dismiss 
her  at  pleasure,  and,  for  certain  offences,  might  even  take  her 
life? 

Yery  high  encomiums  have  been  bestowed  upon  the  tribu- 
nal of  censors  at  Eome  by  Montesquieu,  Rousseau,  and  most 
other  writers,  who  have  treated  of  the  Roman  affairs.  More 
pist  appears  to  me  the  opinion  of  De  Lolme,  who  considers  it 
a  piece  of  state-craft,  like  those  described  above,  invented  by 
the  patricians,  as  an  additional  means  of  securing  their  own 
authority.  It  was  founded  on  a  principle  similar  to  that  ad- 
vocated by  Sir  Thomas  More,  in  his  Account  of  Utopia,  the 
happy  region;  though  not  carried  to  the  extreme  of  that 
writer,  whose  ravings,  in  many  parts  of  his  work,  can  hardly 
be  matched  out  of  bedlam  ;  for  he  made  it  a  capital  crime  in 
the  people  even  to  talk  of  the  conduct  of  their  rulers.  Still, 
the  power  of  the  censors,  under  the  Roman  constitution,  in 
its  own  nature  altogether  arbitrary,  was  at  the  same  time  wide 
in  its  range,  and  excessive  in  degree.  Among  other  discre- 
tionary powers,  entrusted  to  them,  was  that  of  determining 
the  social  standing  of  every  member  of  the  state ;  that  of 
punishing  with  the  brand  of  ignominy  (nota  censoria)  every 
moral  baseness  which  could  not  be  reached  by  the  law,  as  dis- 
affection towards  parents,  alienation  between  husbands  and 
wives,  harshness  towards  neighbors,  excessive  luxury,  idle- 
ness, and  the  like ;  and,  by  the  Ovinian  law,  that  even  of 
filling  vacancies  in  the  senate.  These  were,  indeed,  vast  and 
terrific  powers  ;  and  all  of  them,  as  may  be  seen  at  a  glance, 
well  adapted  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  aristocracy,  and 
24 


370  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

to  diminisli  and  restrain  the  privileges  of  the  people.  Cer- 
tainly the  existence  of  a  censorial  power  in  a  state  is  of  very 
great  importance.  It  is  a  power  capable  of  producing  excel- 
lent effects.  It  may  even  be  said  to  be  essential  to  liberty. 
But  the  exercise  of  it,  unlike  that  of  the  legislative  power, 
ought  to  be  left  to  the  people  themselves.  "  The  sentiments 
of  the  people  are  the  only  thing  in  question  here.  It  is,  there- 
fore, necessary,  that  the  people  should  speak  for  themselves, 
and  manifest  their  sentiments.  A  jDarticular  court  of  censure 
would  frustrate  the  intended  purpose.  It  is  attended,  besides, 
with  very  great  inconveniences.  As  the  use  of  such  a  court 
is  to  determine  npon  those  cases  w^hich  lie  out  of  the  reach 
of  the  laws,  it  cannot  be  tied  down  to  any  precise  legulations. 
As  a  further  consequence  of  the  arbitrary  nature  of  its  func- 
tions, it  cannot  even  be  subjected  to  any  constitutional  check ; 
and  it  continually  presents  to  the  eye  the  view  of  a  power 
entirely  arbitrary,  and  which,  in  its  different  exertions,  may 
affect,  in  the  most  cruel  manner,  the  peace  and  happiness  of 
individuals.  It  is  attended,  moreover,  with  the  very  perni- 
cious consequence,  that,  by  dictating  to  the  people,  their 
judgments  of  men  and  measures,  it  takes  from  them  the  free- 
dom of  thinking,  which  is  the  noblest  privilege,  as  well  as  the 
firmest  support  of  liberty."  (De  Lolme.)  The  true  ends  of 
the  censorial  power  were  better  secured,  and  with  less  danger 
to  liberty,  as  I  shall  show  hereafter,  under  the  Hebrew  con- 
stitution, by  the  institution  of  the  prophetical  office,  and  still 
better,  imder  the  English  and  American  constitutions,  by  a 
^>\^  free  press.  How  terrible  the  censorial  power,  exercised  by 
the  Hebrew  prophets,  w\as  to  tyrants,  we  see  in  the  history  of 
Ahab ;  how  formidable  the  power  of  a  free  press  is  to  our 
own  rulers,  every  day  attests.  The  right,  so  constantly  and 
freely  used  among  us,  of  openly  canvassing  and  arraigning 
the  conduct  of  public  men,  dispels  the  halo  of  greatness 
which  surrounds  them,  brings  them  dow^n  to  the  level  of  the 
rest  of  the  people,    and  strikes  a  salutary  terror  into  their 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  6(1 

minds,  whenever  they  feel  tempted  to  overstep  the  bounds  of 
a  lawful  authority,  and  abuse  the  trusts  confided  to  them  by 
their  fellow-citizens. 

If  we  examine  the  revolutions,  which  happened  at  Rome, 
we  shall  find  them  uniformly  terminating  in  settlements, 
which  inured  to  the  benefit  of  the  few,  while  the  interests  of 
the  many  received  but  little  attention.  Thus,  the  only  con- 
sequence of  that  great  revolution,  by  which  the  kings  were 
driven  from  Eome,  was,  that  the  powers,  lately  exercised  by 
them,  were  transferred  to  the  senators,  by  whom  the  revolution 
had  been  instigated.  The  cause  of  public  liberty  gained 
nothing.  Indeed,  it  was  rather  damaged  than  otherwise. 
Power  was  stretched  even  beyond  its  former  tone  ;  a  fact 
more  than  intimated  by  Livy,  when  he  says,  in  allusion  to 
the  consuls,  that  the  people  now  had  two  kings,  instead  of 
one.  In  like  manner,  the  commotion,  in  which  the  people 
withdrew  in  a  body  from  Rome,  and  posted  themselves  on  a 
hill  beyond  the  Anio,  ended  in  nothing  but  the  advancement 
of  a  few  particular  persons,  under  the  title  of  tribunes.  The 
grievances,  which  had  caused  the  commotion,  remained 
unredressed ;  and  the  most  that  the  tribunes  did  with  them,  was 
to  use  them  as  an  instrument  in  advancing  their  own  personal 
views.  Even  the  code  of  the  twelve  tables,  which  the  people 
procured  at  the  greatest  cost  and  pains,  was,  as  to  the  framing 
of  it,  wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  patricians,  and  left  the 
power  of  the  senate  and  consuls  as  undefined  as  before.  The 
revolution,  whereby  the  decemvirs  were  expelled  from  power, 
on  account  of  their  capricious  and  wanton  abuse  of  it,  issued 
but  little  better  for  the  cause  of  the  people.  The  tribunes 
did,  undoubtedly,  by  means  of  it,  obtain  many  additional 
privileges,  and  got  a  law  passed,  to  the  effect,  that  the  reso- 
lutions of  the  comitia  tributa,  in  which  they  had  the  right  to 
propose  new  laws,  should  be  binding  upon  the  whole 
commonwealth.  This  is  well  described  by  Livy  as  acerrimum 
telum,  a  most  active  and  powerful  weapon  ;  and  most  activel}" 


372  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

and  efficaciously  did  thej  use  it,  till  the  consulship,  the 
praetorship,  the  censorship,  the  priesthood,  the  senatorial 
dignity,  and  all  the  other  offices  of  executive  power,  were 
within  their  grasp.  This  was  the  goal,  at  which  they  were 
constantly  aiming.  This  was  what  they  meant  in  all  their 
proposals  for  relieving  the  people  of  their  debts,  for  diminish- 
ino-  the  rate  of  interest,  and  for  dividing  among  the  people 
the  lands  taken  from  the  enemy.  These  were  all  equitable 
and  excellent  proposals ;  but,  unfortunately  for  the  people, 
as  made  by  their  tribunes,  they  were  only  pretences,  devised 
to  cover  and  conceal  schemes  of  personal  ambition.  To  these 
selfish  views  and  aims  they  continually  made  the  cause  of  the 
people  subservient.  That  this  is  not  mere  assertion,  but  fact, 
we  have  clear  proof  in  the  manner  in  which  they  procured 
for  themselves  the  right  of  admission  to  the  consulship. 
Availing  themselves  of  what  was  called  an  interregnum,  that 
is,  a  time  when  there  happened  to  be  no  magistrates  in  the 
state  but  themselves,  they  brought  three  propositions  before 
the  comitia  of  the  tribes,  viz.  one  for  regulating  the  rate  of 
interest,  another  for  limiting  the  quantity  of  land  that  could 
be  held  by  a  citizen,  and  a  third  requiring  that  one  of  the 
two  consuls  should  be  taken  from  among  the  plebeians.  The 
tribes  voted  in  favor  of  the  first  two  measures,  but  agains 
the  last.  The  tribunes  declared,  that  the  three  bills  must  be 
accepted  or  rejected  together.  The  most  violent  commotions 
followed,  and  lasted  through  an  entire  year.  The  tribunes 
clung  to  the  consulship,  and  at  length  triumphed.  Livy 
truly  observes,  that,  on  this  occasion,  it  was  quite  manifest 
which  of  the  laws  in  question  were  most  agreeable  to  the 
people,  and  which  to  those  who  proposed  them.  The  tribunes 
were  so  intent  upon  personal  advantages,  that  they  were 
MMlling  to  sacrifice  to  them  the  most  wejghty  interests  of  their 
constituency.  "A  few  tribunes,  indeed,  did  at  times  apply 
themselves  seriously,  out  of  real  virtue  and  love  of  their 
duty,  to  remedy  the  grievances  of  the   people ;    but    their 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBKEWS.  373 

fellow  tribunes,  and  the  whole  body  of  those  men,  upon  wliom 
the  people  had,  at  different  times,  bestowed  consulships, 
aedileships,  censorships,  and  other  dignities  without  number, 
united  together  with  the  utmost  vehemence  against  them  ; 
and  the  real  patriots,  as  Fulvius  and  the  Gracchi,  constantly 
perished  in  the  attempt."     (De  Lolme.) 

If  the  laws  concerning  the  liberty  of  the  citizens  were  im- 
perfect in  themselves,  the  execution  of  them  was  still  more 
defective.  Soon  after  the  expulsion  of  the  kings,  a  law  was 
passed,  confirming  the  right  of  the  citizens, — a  right  pre- 
viously enjoyed  by  them, — of  appealing  to  the  people  from 
decrees  of  death  passed  upon  them.  The  consuls,  how- 
ever, paid  little  attention  to  such  appeals,  but  as  we  learn 
from  Dionysius  and  Livy,  sported  with  the  lives  of  the  citizens 
in  the  most  arbitrary  manner.  The  same  law  was  intro- 
duced into  the  twelve  tables  ;  but  it  was  as  little  respected  by 
the  decemvirs,  and  the  magistrates  who  succeeded  them,  as  it 
had  before  been  by  the  consuls.  About  a  hundred  and  forty 
years  later,  this  law  concerning  an  appeal  to  the  people  was 
enacted  for  the  third  time ;  but  to  no  better  purpose  than  on 
the  previous  occasions.  It  was  continually  violated  by  the 
different  magistrates  of  the  republic ;  and  once  the  senate,  of 
its  own  authority,  ordered  four  thousand  citizens  to  be  put  to 
death,  despite  the  urgent  remonstrances  of  the  tribunes 
against  so  summary  and  severe  an  exercise  of  public  justice. 
According  to  the  constitution,  no  war  could  be  waged,  without 
the  sanction  of  the  peoj^le  in  the  curiae  or  centuries.  But 
instances  occur,  in  which  the  senate  alone  declared  war,  levied 
armies,  and  carried  on  hostilities.  ISTeibuhr  is  of  the  opinion, 
that  the  agrarian  law  was  actually  passed  under  Spurius  Cas- 
sius  ;  but  if  so,  it  is  certain,  that  the  people  did  not  enjoy  the 
benefit  of  it.  Nor  did  the  magistrates  content  themselves 
with  perpetrating  acts  of  injustice  in  their  political  capacity. 
They  added  the  most  shameless  extortions.  First  they 
plundered  the  provinces.     But  Italy  itself  did  not   escape. 


374  COMMENTAKIES   ON   THE 

The  disease  at  length  reached  the  very  heart  of  the  republio. 
And  here  a  new  disorder  arose.  The  judges  proved  as  cor- 
rupt, as  the  magistrates  had  been  oppressive.  As  early  as 
the  times  of  the  Gracchi,  it  had  become  a  general  complaint, 
that  no  man,  who  had  money,  could  be  brought  to  punishment. 
Cicero  says,  that  in  his  time,  the  same  opinion  was  univer- 
sally received ;  and  his  orations  abound  wdth  lamentations 
over  the  levity  and  infamy  of  the  public  judgments. 

Thus,  on  a  review  and  recapitulation  of  what  has  been  said 
concerning  the  Roman  constitution,  it  appears,  that  the  prin- 
cipal assembly  of  the  people,  the  comitia  centuriata,  was  con- 
stituted in  such  a  manner,  as  to  give  a  preponderating  influ- 
ence to  rank  and  riches  ;  that  an  exact  and  well  defined  divi- 
sion of  powers  was  wanting ;  that  there  was  no  adequate 
system  of  checks  and  balances  ;  that  the  patricians  were  at  the 
greatest  pains  to  give  the  people  wrong  notions  of  liberty ; 
that  a  tyrannical  and  frightful  power  was  exercised  by  credi- 
tors over  debtors  ;  that  the  tribuneship  was  radically  defective 
in  its  constitution  ;  that,  by  the  use  of  a  great  variety  of  arti- 
fices, the  senators  and  great  men  of  the  state  held  the  people 
always  imder  their  control;  that  the  tribunes  themselves  were 
not  faithful  defenders  of  liberty,  but  continually  betrayed 
those  who  confided  in  them;  that  the  judicial  power  was  a 
mere  instrument  of  tyranny ;  that  the  senate,  consuls,  and 
dictators  possessed  an  arbitrary  power  over  the  lives  of  the 
citizens ;  that  the  tribunal  of  censors  was  a  mere  piece  of 
state-craft,  devised  as  an  additional  prop  to  patrician  and  sen- 
atorial power ;  that  almost  all  the  revolutions  and  public  com- 
motions at  Rome  ended  in  advancing  the  power  and  interests 
of  the  few,  while  the  grievances  of  the  many  remained  unre- 
dressed ;  and  that  imperfect  as  the  laws  concerning  the  liberty 
of  the  citizens  were,  the  execution  of  them  was  still  more 
defective.  Let  any  one  attentively  consider  these  things,  and 
Bay,  whether  popular  liberty  in  ancient  Rome  was  any  thing 


LAWS   OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  375 

more  than  a  name,  a  dream,  a  gilded  blind,  cunningly  con- 
trived to  conceal  from  vulgar  eyes  the  real  tyranny  of  aristo- 
cratic rulers. 

I  deny  not  that  there  were  elements  in  the  Roman,  Grecian, 
Egyptian,  and  even  Asiatic  polities,  worthy  of  praise  and 
imitation.  But  the  point  which  I  have  aimed  to  establish  is 
this, — that  civil  liberty,  founded  on  equal  rights,  and  acting 
through  the  popular  will,  was  a  blessing  unknown  to  the 
whole  ancient  gentile  world.  When  we  turn  from  the  dreary 
prospects,  on  which  our  eyes  have  rested  through  this  chapter, 
where  tyranny  rules,  the  hour  and  the  scene  each  moment  is 
imbued  in  blood,  to  the  green  vales  and  vine-clad  hills  of 
Palestine,  we  shall  see  millions  of  freemen  reposing,  in  hap- 
piness and  security,  beneath  the  sheltering  aegis  of  a  polity, 
stamped,  in  its  every  lineament,  with  the  signatures  of  its 
divine  original.  This  favored  people  were  not  more  distin- 
guished, during  their  journeyings  and  encampments  in  the 
wilderness,  by  the  mysterious  shechinah,  which  shot  its  fiery 
splendors  up  to  mid-heaven,  symbolizing  the  divine  presence 
among  them,  than  they  afterwards  were  by  their  civil  consti- 
tution ;  a  constitution  containing  the  elemental  principles  of 
all  just,  wise,  and  equal  legislation,  and  bearing  indubitable 
marks  of  a  divine  wisdom  in  its  formation. 


376  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Geographical  Limits  and  Population  of  Palestine.* 

The  principal  passages  in  the  Pentateuch  and  other  his- 
torical books  of  the  Old  Testament,  relating  to  the  bounda- 
ries of  the  holy  land,  are  the  following  : — Gen.  15  :  18-21. 
Exod.  23  :  31.  Numb.  31 :  1-29.  Dent.  1 :  6-8.  11 :  21. 
Josh.  11 :  16-17.  13  :  1-7.  19  :  21-31.  15  :  47.  Judg.  1  :  31. 
2  Sam.  8:3.  1  Kings  1 :  21-21.  2  Chron.  8 :  1-6.  9  :  26. 
The  reader  is  requested,  before  he  proceeds  further,  to  peruse 
these  passages,  and  compare  them  together.  On  a  careful 
examination  of  them,  the  first  thing,  which  strikes  the  mind, 
is  an  apparent  inconsistency  in  their  statements  respecting 
the  eastern  and  southern  limits  of  the  Israelitish  territories. 
In  the  thirty-fourth  chapter  of  Numbers,  where  the  boundary 
line  is  described  with  great  minuteness,  the  river  Jordan  is 
mentioned  as  the  east  border;  and  an  irregular  curve,  ex- 
tending across  the  desert,  from  the  southern  extremity  of 
the  Dead  Sea  to  the  river  of  Egypt,  forms  the  south  border. 
But  in  all  the  other  passages,  where  the  boundaries  are  spo- 
ken of,  viz.  Gen.  15,  Exod.  23,  Deut.  1,  11,  2  Sam.  8,  1 
Kings  4,  and  2  Chron.  8,  9, — eight  passages  in  all, — the 
Euphrates  is  mentioned  as  the  eastern  limit;  and  in  Exod. 
23  :  31,  the  bounds  of  Israel  are  spoken  of  as  stretching  to 
the  southward,  as  far  as  the  Red  Sea. 

*  See  on  the  suhject  of  this  chapter  ]\Iich.  Com.  on  the  Laws  of  Moses, 
/Vrts.  19-28. 


LAWS    OF   THE    AKCIENT   HEBREWS.  377 

13ut  tliere  is  no  real  contradiction.  The  boundary  of  the 
holy  land,  which  the  Israelites  were  to  divide,  after  expelling 
the  inhabitants,  was  one  thing ;  the  boundary,  beyond  which 
they  were  not  permitted  to  extend  their  conquests  eastward, 
was  another.  Jordan  was  the  former  ;  Euphrates  the  latter. 
The  intervening  territory  was  not  necessarily  to  be  occupied, 
exclusively,  by  the  Israelites  ;  but  was  to  serve  as  a  pasture- 
ground  for  their  cattle ;  the  greater  part  of  it,  indeed,  being 
fit  for  no  other  purpose.  The  appointment  of  the  Euphrates 
as  a  boundary  included  in  it  a  prohibition  to  the  Israelites 
against  extending  their  dominion  beyond  it ;  which,  in  point 
of  fact,  they  never  did,  not  even  in  the  reign  of  David, 
although  he  obtained  important  victories  over  the  kings  of 
Mesopotamia.  Palestine  proper,  that  country  which  was  to 
be  the  fixed  abode  of  the  Hebrews,  lay  west  of  the  Jordan. 
Moses  laid  no  claim  to  the  territories  east  of  that  river. 
The  Israelites  were  forbidden,  without  provocation,  to  molest 
the  Moabites  and  Ammonites,  the  children  of  Lot,  and  to 
drive  them  from  their  lands.  *  Even  the  Amorites,  a 
Syrian  tribe  descended  from  Canaan,  were  not  dispossessed 
of  their  territories,  nor  was  the  purpose  of  dispossessing  them 
entertained,  till  Sihon,  their  king,  without  provocation  on  the 
part  of  the  Hebrews,  marched  an  army  beyond  his  frontier, 
and  commenced  hostilities  against  them.  In  this  attack,  the 
Amorites  were  unsuccessful ;  and,  by  right  of  conquest, 
Moses  seized  upon  their  territories,  and  appropriated  them  to 
the  use  of  the  chosen  people.f  The  same  thing  afterwards 
happened  to  the  Edomites,  whose  country  lay  to  the  south  of 
the  land  of  Israel.  Their  conduct  was  such  as  to  give  just 
cause  of  war ;  and  David  took  occasion  thence  to  conquer 
their  territories,  and  annex  them  to  the  Israelitish  do- 
minions.:}:    This   extended  the   boundary   of  Israel,   on  the 

«  Deut.  ii.  9,     Judg.  xi.  15.  t  Numb.  xxi.  21-25. 

X  2  Sam.  viii.  14.     1  Chton.  xviii.  13. 


378  COMMENT  A  EIES    ON    THE 

south,  to  the  Red  Sea,  agreeably  to  a  diviuo  promise,*  and 
gave  to  the  Hebrews  the  ports  of  Aehi  and  Eziongeber. 

The  case,  then,  appears  to  be  this.  1.  The  Hebrews  were 
to  drive  out  the  Canaanitish  nations,  inhabiting  the  country 
lying  between  the  Mediterranean  sea  and  the  river  Jordan, 
and  between  the  river  of  Egypt  and  the  mountains  of  Leba- 
non. This  region  was  to  be  their  peculiar  inheritance.  This 
was  the  land  of  promise,  and  was  to  be,  in  a  preeminent 
sense,  the  holy  land.  Accordingly,  we  find,  that  a  remark- 
able distinction  was  always  made  between  the  country  lying 
to  the  east,  and  that  situated  to  the  west  of  the  Jordan, 
The  latter  was,  even  by  the  tribes  inhabiting  the  former, 
ever  accounted  more  sacred  than  their  own.f  2.  The  Israel- 
ites were  permitted  to  make  conquests  of  the  surrounding 
regions,  when  provoked  to  war  by  the  nations  occupying 
them.  These  conquests  might  be  extended  as  far  as  to  the 
river  Euphrates,  should  there  be  just  occasion  for  so  doing. 
3.  Beyond  this  boundary,  the  Hebrews  were  not  permitted  to 
pass,  under  any  provocation,  nor  for  any  purpose,  to  make 
conquests  and  annexations.  The  permission  to  go  so  far  wa^ 
tantamount  to  a  law  against  going  any  farther. 

Let  us  now,  as  far  as  we  are  able,  trace  the  limits  of  the 
Hebrew  dominions,  as  they  were  at  their  widest  extent,  or  as 
they  were  intended  to  be,  if  the  Israelites  had  obeyed  the 
divine  command  respecting  the  extermination  of  the  Ca- 
naanites. 

The  western  boundary  was  to  be  the  great  sea,  that  is, 
the  Mediterranean.  The  boundary  was  to  commence,  where 
the  south  border  touches  the  sea,  viz.  at  the  river  of  Egypt, 
and  to  stretch  northward  to  a  great  distance.  How  far,  how- 
ever, is  a  question  still  in  dispute.  All  agree  that  it  extended 
to  Achzib,  or  Ecdippa,  a  little  above  the  thirty-third  degree  of 
north  latitude,  and  about  fifteen  miles  to  the  north  of  Acco, 
the  Ptolemais  of  the  Greeks,  and  the  Acre  of  the  Turks.     It 

*  Exod.  xxiii.  31.  f  Josh,  xxu.  24,  25. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  379 

was  of  great  importance  to  the  Hebrews,  that  this  last  men- 
tioned place  should  be  embraced  within  their  territories.  It 
is  the  Gibraltar  of  Palestine.  Its  possession  is  decisive  of 
the  fate  of  the  conutrj.  Whoever  holds  it  is  master,  or  may 
easily  make  himself  master  of  all  Palestine.  The  whole 
course  of  history,  ancient  and  modern,  evinces  this  fact.  The 
reason  is  plain.  From  this  city,  the  vast  and  fertile  plain  of 
Esdraelon  extends,  in  a  southerly  direction,  from  the  Medi- 
terranean to  the  Jordan,  dividing  Palestine  into  two  unequal 
halves.  In  this  plain  have  been  fought  nearly  all  the  great 
battles,  which  have  decided  the  fate  of  the  country.  Here 
Sisera  fell,  and  his  army  was  routed  and  slain.*  Here  Saul 
lost  his  crown  and  his  life  together.f  Hea-e  king  Josiah  was 
defeated  and  slain.;}:  And  here,  during  the  crusades,  the 
bloodiest  and  most  decisive  battles  were  fought.  This  plain 
was  the  chief  theatre  of  those  holy  wars. 

But  the  real  boundary  here  never  corresponded  to  the 
boundary  contemplated  by  the  law.  The  people  of  Israel 
did  not  expel  the  Philistines,  agreeably  to  the  divine  com- 
mand. David  was  the  first  who  executed  what  the  lawgiver 
required  on  this  head  ;  and  even  he  rather  subdued  than  ex- 
terminated these  strange  nations.  The  clear  possession  of 
this  coast  is  of  great  importance  to  a  state  established  in 
Palestine,  even  though  it  do  not  engage  in  commerce ;  for 
without  it  the  boundary  can  never  be  secure.  As  long  as 
the  Philistines  continued  to  occupy  but  a  small  tract  of  the 
coast,  the  Israelites  were  never  at  rest.  Sometimes  they 
were  even  brought  under  the  Philistine  yoke,  as  we  see  from 
the  books  of  Judges  and  Samuel. 

As  it  regards  that  part  of  the  coast,  which  extends  north- 
ward, from  Achzib  to  Zidon,  the  learned  are  not  agreed, 
whether  the  sea  was  here  to  form  the  Israelitish  boundary,  or 
whether  a  narrow  strip  of  territory  was  to  be  left  to  the  un- 
disturbed possession  of   the     Sidonians.      The    majority  of 

*  Judg.  iv.  f  1  Sam.  xxxi  X  2  Kings  xxiii.  29. 


380  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

biblical  scholai-s  bold  to  the  first  of  these  opinions.  The  ar- 
guments, which  they  bring  in  support  of  it,  are  weighty  and 
strong.  The  principal  passages,  bearing  upon  the  point,  are 
the  following :— Josh.  13  :  6.  19  :  28,  29.  Judg.  1  :  31.  By 
consulting  these  places,  it  will  be  seen,  that  "  all  the  Sido- 
nians"  were  included  among  the  people  to  be  driven  out  of 
their  territories  by  the  Israelites ;  that  the  border  of  Asher 
was  to  extend  "  unto  great  Zidon,"  and  "  the  strong  city 
Tyre ;"  and  that  tribe  is  censured  for  not  "  driving  out  the 
inhabitants  of  Zidon." 

Michaelis  dissents  from  this  opinion,  and  maintains,  on  the 
contrary,  that  the  narrow  strip  of  coast,  between  mount  Hor 
and  the  sea,  extending  from  Achzib  to  Sidon,  about  half  a 
degree  of  latitude  in  length,  was  to  be  left  to  the  Phenicians, 
who  were  the  actual  possessors  of  it  at  the  time  of  the  con- 
quest. The  arguments,  by  which  he  defends  this  position, 
are  plausible,  if  cot  convincing.  They  are  as  follows  :  1.  This 
coast  was  never  in  the  possession  of  the  Hebrews.  They 
never  made  any  attempt  to  conquer  it, — not  even  in  the 
reigns  of  David  and  Solomon.  2.  These  two  monarchs 
lived  in  the  closest  friendship  with  the  kings  of  Tyre ;  nor 
is  the  alliance  between  them,  though  often  referred  to  in 
scripture,  ever  mentioned  with  disapprobation.  3.  In  all  the 
catalogues  given  by  Moses  himself,  whether  longer  or  shorter, 
of  the  nations  to  be  expelled  by  the  Israelites,  the  Sidonians 
are  never  included.  4.  The  boundary  line  of  the  tribe  of 
Aslier,  traced  by  Joshua,  seems  to  confirm  this  view.  It 
first  touches  the  sea  near  mount  Carmel  and  the  river  Belns. 
Thence  the  boundary  line  runs  landward  a  great  way  to  the 
north ;  then  turns  southward,  passing  Sidon  and  Tyre,  ap- 
j)arently  without  reaching  the  sea  in  this  quarter;  and, 
finall}^,  comes  to  touch  the  coast  again  near  Achzib.  Whence 
it  would  seem  that  the  small  tract  of  coast  north  from  Ecdip- 
pa,  which  we  call  Phenicia,  was  to  remain  in  the  indisputed 
possession  of  the  original  proprietors.     5.  This  little  country 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  381 

would  be  more  valuable  to  the  Israelites,  if  it  remained  in  the 
possession  of  the  Pbenicians,  tban  if  they  conquered  and  an- 
nexed it  to  tbeir  own  dominions.  It  would  have  been  of  no 
great  use  to  tbem,  if  incorporated  into  their  territory,  since 
they  were  not  to  be  a  trading  people.  But  if  the  trading 
people,  who  inhabited  it,  had  been  driven  out,  and  the  mari- 
time commerce,  which  the  Israelites  could  not  carry  on 
themselves,  had  totally  ceased,  they  would  have  lost  a  most 
valuable  market  for  their  surplus  corn,  wine,  oil,  and  other 
commodities,  which  they  exported  by  means  of  the  Pbeni- 
cians, together  with  the  caravan  trade  from  Arabia  to  Pheni- 
cia,  which  must  have  been  very  profitable.  The  loss  of  these 
markets  would,  at  the  same  time,  have  been  the  loss  of  their 
chief  motives  to  industry,  agriculture,  and  manufactures. 
Neither  could  there  be  much  danger  to  the  Israelites  in 
suflPering  this  little  stretch  of  coast  to  continue  in  possession 
of  the  Phenicians,  since  their  boundary  here  was  quite  secure 
by  means  of  mount  Lebanon,  at  whose  foot  the  sea  flowed. 
The  inhabitants  of  so  small  a  tract  of  coast  could  not  become 
very  formidable,  especially  as  their  devotion  to  commerce 
would  naturally  lead  them  to  cultivate  relations  of  amity  and 
peace  with  foreign  nations.  6.  In  the  blessings  of  Jacob,  it 
is  actually  represented  as  a  fortunate  circumstance  for  Zebu- 
Ion,  that  he  was  to  have  his  inheritance  on  a  sea  coast,  well 
frequented  by  ships,  and  not  far  from  Sidon. 

This  theory  is  plausible,  and  the  arguments  brought  to  sus- 
tain it  not  destitute  of  force.  Still,  as  the  learned  commenta- 
tor himself  confesses,  it  is  pressed  with  great  difficulties.  The 
strongest  objection  is  drawn  from  the  passage  in  Judg.  1  :  31, 
where  it  is  represented  as  a  fault  in  Asher,  that  he  "  did  not 
drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  Zidon."  From  this  it  would 
seem,  that  he  should  have  done  so,  and  have  taken  possession 
of  it  himself.  Michaelis  ingenuously  owns,  that  he  knows 
not  what  satisfactory  answer  to  make  to  this  objection.  To 
escape  from  difficulty,  he  suggests  an  emendation,  perhaps  I 


382  COMMENTAIilES   ON   THE 

might  better  say,  a  mutilation  of  the  text.  He  conjectures, 
that  tie  words  "inhabitants  of  Zidon  "  are  an  interpolation, 
though  he  pretends  no  other  authority  for  the  criticism,  than 
the  strength  of  the  argument  for  excluding  Sidon  from  the  ter- 
ritories of  Israel.  This  is  a  bold  liberty,  and  not  to  be  toler- 
ated, except  in  a  case  of  absolute  necessity.  "Whether  or  not 
the  present  is  such  a  case,  the  reader  will  judge  for  himself. 

The  southern  boundary  of  Israel,  according  to  the  statute 
contained  in  the  thirty-fourth  chapter  of  Numbers,  was  to  ex- 
tend from  the  Mediterranean  sea,  at  the  point  where  the 
river  of  Egypt  empties  into  it,  to  the  southern  extremity  of 
the  Salt,  that  is,  the  Dead  sea.  "What  stream  is  meant  by 
the  river  of  Egypt,  is  a  point  nmch  disputed  by  biblical  geo- 
grajohers.  Some  consider  it  a  rivulet,  which  falls  into  the 
sea  at  El-Arisch,  the  ancient  Khinocolura.  Others  regard  it 
as  a  stream,  which  empties  into  the  Sirbonic  lake,  or  gulf, 
near  Calich.  Others,  still,  understand  by  it  the  eastern,  or 
Pelusic  branch  of  the  IS'ile.  Dr.  Hales*  has  given  the  sub- 
ject an  extended  examination,  and  has  exhibited  strong 
proofs  of  the  correctness  of  the  last  mentioned  of  these 
opinions.  The  statements  of  Herodotus  and  Pliny  favor  this 
view.  The  formerf  mentions  mount  Casius,  lying  between 
Pelusium  and  the  Sirbonic  lake,  as  the  boundary  between 
Egypt  and  Palestine ;  and  the  latter;]:  reckons  the  Sirbonic 
lake  itself  as  the  boundary.  Between  these  two  points,  the 
river  of  Egypt  and  the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead  sea, 
the  boundary  fixed  by  the  law  of  Moses,  ran,  in  an  irregular 
curve,  through  various  places,  whose  names  will  be  found  in 
Kumbers  34  :  3-5.  The  position  of  most  of  these  places  has 
never  been  determined  with  exactness  ;  and  of  course  the 
curvatures  of  the  boundary  line  cannot  be  laid  down  with 
certainty. 

The  nearest  neighbors  of  the  Israelites,  on  this  side,  were 

*  Anal.  Chron.  V.  1,  pp.  413,  414.  f  L.  3,  C.  5. 

t  Nat.  Hist.  1.  5,  C.  13. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  383 

the  Edomites.  TLey  were  descendants  of  Esau  (called  also 
Edom*),  and  of  course  nearly  related  to  the  Israelites.  They 
had  a  fertile  country  and  lived  under  a  settled  government. 
Then  came  the  Amalekites,  Geshurites,  and  other  wild  Arab 
tribes.  These  were  fierce,  warlike,  marauding  nations,  who 
lived  by  plundering  their  neighbors,  and  making  slaves  of 
their  young  women.  With  such  people,  no  settled  peace 
could  be  had.  Moses,  therefore,  took  advantage  of  an  unpro- 
voked attack  of  the  Amalekites  to  incorporate  into  his  code 
a  law  for  their  extermination.  This  procedure  has  drawn 
down  upon  him  very  bitter  reproaches.  Yet  he  ought  not  to 
be  blamed  for  it,  for  prudence  required,  that  the  desert 
should  be  cleared  of  such  neighbors.  Their  unprovoked  and 
repeated  injuries  gave  the  Hebrews  a  just  right  to  extermi- 
nate them.  It  was  no  more  unjust  in  Israel  to  proceed  in 
this  manner  towards  the  Amalekites  than  it  would  be  in  the 
United  States  to  destroy  a  nest  of  pirates,  that  had  taken  pos- 
session of  some  neighboring  island,  for  greater  convenience 
of  preying  upon  the  property  and  lives  of  our  citizens. 

We  must  not  suppose,  that  these  Arab  tribes  had  accurately 
defined  limits  and  fixed  habitations.  Such  a  notion  would 
often  involve  us  in  great  perplexity  in  reading  the  Bible. 
They  were  wandering  herdsmen,  just  as  the  Arabs  of  our  day 
are.  They  pastui'ed  their  sheep  and  cattle,  wherever  conven- 
ience dictated.  They  had  no  right  of  property  in  the  soil. 
There  might  be  encampments  of  Amalekites,  Midianites,  and 
other  nomadic  tribes,  with  their  flocks  and  herds,  all  on  the 
«ame  plain,  and  within  short  distances  of  each  other.  Nay, 
they  might  even  be  mingled  together,  as  we  see  the  Kenites 
were  with  the  Amalekites  ;  for  Saul,  when  about  to  attack  the 
latter,  sent  to  request,  that  the  former  would  withdraw,  for  a 
time,  from  that  quarter.f  We  can  hence  easily  see  how 
Balaam,  from  the  heights  of  Moab,  could  see  so  many  differ- 
ent nations.:}:     They  were  not  whole  nations,  but  hordes  of  the 

*  Gen.  xxxvi.  43.  f  1  Sam.  xv.  6.  J  Numb,  xxiv. 


384:  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

various  nations,  whose  fates  he  predicted,  when  he  cast  his 
eye  upon  their  several  encampments,  scattered  over  the  wide 
desert  below. 

Even  Edom,  though  under  a  regular  government,  had  not 
its  boundaries  perfectly  defined.  The  history  of  the  march  of 
the  Israelites  shows  this.  The  territories  of  Edom  extended 
from  the  southern  border  of  Palestine  to  the  Red  Sea,  and 
included  the  seaport  town  of  Eziongeber.  Now,  in  going 
from  Sinai  to  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Jordan,  it  is  necessary 
to  cross  this  region  somewhere.  Yet  Moses  did  not  traverse 
the  country  of  Edom,  but  went  round  it.*  This  makes  it 
clear,  that  there  could  not  have  been  an  accurately  defined 
boundary,  but  that  uncultivated  and  unappropriated  wastes 
must  have  overspread  the  country. 

The  southern  boundary  of  Israel  did  not  always  continue 
what  it  was  made  by  the  law  recorded  in  Numb.  34.  God, 
through  his  servant  Moses,  promised  the  chosen  people,  that 
their  bounds  should  be  from  the  Eed  Sea  to  the  sea  of  the 
Philistines. f  This  looks  like  a  permission,  when  a  just  provo- 
cation should  afibrd  the  occasion,  to  conquer  the  Idumean 
territory,  and  appropriate  it  to  their  own  use ;  which  was  ac- 
tually done  in  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon.  The  father 
conquered  and  annexed  to  the  Israelitish  dominions  the 
whole  country,  even  to  the  Eed  Sea ;  and  the  son  made  the 
Idumean  ports  of  Aela  and  Eziongeber,  on  that  sea,  the  seat 
of  an  extensive,  rich,  and  flourishing  commerce.  Some 
learned  men  believe,  that  the  ships  of  Solomon,  starting  from 
this  point,  circumnavigated  Africa.  But  this  is  a  matter, 
which  does  not  belong  to  the  present  inquiry. 

The  eastern  boundary  of  what  was  strictly  the  holy  land 
was  the  river  Jordan.  But  the  permitted  boundary,  and,  for 
a  considerable  time,  the  actual  boundary,  was  the  river 
Euphrates.  In  point  of  fact,  the  Jordan  never  formed  the 
bounding  line  of  the  Israelites  on  the  east.     A  vast  extent  of 

*  Numb,  xsxiii.  35-37.  f  Esod.  xxiii.  31. 


LAWS    OF   THE   AKCIENT    HEBREWS.  385 

countiy,  forming  the  kingdoms  of  Sihon  and  Og,  wliicli  was 
peculiarly  adapted  to  the  rearmg  of  cattle,  became  the  posses- 
sion of  Reuben  and  Gad,  who  were  rich  in  herds.  TLo 
Amorites,  a  Canaanitish  nation,  then  held  possession  of  the 
land  of  Gilead.  This  was  conquered  by  the  half  tribe  of 
Manasseh,  who  obtained  it  for  a  habitation.*  How  far  the 
inheritance  of  these  tribes  extended  to  the  eastward,  is  the 
question  now  in  hand.  In  maps,  these  countries  are  confined 
within  narrow  limits,  and  are  kept  at  a  great  distance  from 
the  Euphrates.  The  question  is,  did  they  not  approach 
nearer  to  that  river  than  is  commonly  supposed  ?  This  ques- 
tion is  lucidly  treated  by  Michaelis,  the  substance  of  whose 
article  in  relation  to  it,  is  embodied  in  the  following  para 
graphs. 

It  seems  almost  certain,  that  mount  Gilead,  properly  so 
called,  fi-om  which  the  whole  country  had  its  name,  lay  far 
without  the  space,  which  the  common  maps  of  Palestine 
ir.clude,  and  was,  in  feet,  at  no  great  distance  from  the 
Euphrates.  Of  this  any  one  will  convince  himself,  who  will 
titke  the  trouble  to  weigh  the  history  of  Jacob's  flight  from 
Jlaran.  Laban  overtook  him  on  the  tenth  day.  Let  it  be 
renjembered,  that  Haran  is  several  days'  journey  to  the  east 
of  the  Euphrates ;  that  an  immense  stretch  of  country  lies 
between  the  upper  part  of  that  river  and  the  lower  part  of 
the  Jordan  ;  and  that  Jacob  was  encumbered  with  vast  herds 
of  cattle,  camels,  sheep,  and  goats,  with  their  young,  besides 
vnves,  children,  and  servants.  Ten  or  fifteen  miles  a  day 
would  be  good  travelling,  under  such  circumstances.  Who 
can  believe,  that  Jacob  could  have  approached  the  mouth  of 
the  Jordan  in  ten  days  ?  Yet  Laban  overtook  him  on  mount 
Gilead.  The  inference  is  clear,  that  this  mountain  could  not 
have  had  the  position  usually  assigned  it;  but  must  have 
been  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Euphrates.  How  far  the 
land  of  Gilead  may  have  stretched  beyond  the  peaks  of  the 

*  Numb,  sxxii.  39-42. 
25 


386  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

mountain,  and  whether  it  extended  quite  to  the  Euphrates,  it  is 
impossible  to  determine.  Indeed,  of  the  eastern  and  northern 
boundaries  of  the  lands  belonging  to  the  two  and  a  half  tribes, 
we  know  almost  nothing.  The  city  of  Kirjathana,  which 
Moses  assigned  to  the  tribe  of  Keuben,  in  the  opinion  of 
Michaelis,  lay  only  one  day's  journey  from  Palmyra. 

Whether,  in  the  time  of  Moses  and  Joshua,  the  tribes  on 
the  further  side  of  Joi'dan  pastured  their  herds  as  far  eastward 
as  the  Euphrates,  or  not,  they  certainly  did  afterwards  ;  and 
that  before  the  time  of  David.*  This  fact  has  not  been  much 
noticed,  because  it  is  recorded  in  a  book,  which,  consisting  in 
great  part  of  dry  catalogues  of  names,  is  comparatively  but 
little  read.  On  this  account,  many  remarkable  historical  oc- 
currences, related  in  it,  are  commonly  overlooked.  But  in  1 
Chron.  5,  9,  it  is  expressly  said  that  the  posterity  of  Reuben 
dwelt  eastward,  as  far  as  the  river  Euphrates,  because  their 
cattle  were  multiplied  in  the  land  of  Gilead.  A  very  sur- 
prising history  is  added  in  vv.  10-22.  It  is  to  the  following 
effect.  The  two  and  a  half  trans-jordanic  tribes,  in  the  days 
of  Saul,  made  war  with  four  powerful  Arabian  nations^ 
among  whom  were  the  Hagarites,  whose  country  bordered  on 
the  Persian  gulf.  They  gained  a  decisive  victory,  to-^k  a 
hundred  thousand  captives,  and  an  immense  quantity  of  cattle 
and  sheep,  drove  out  the  former  inhabitants,  and  "dwelt  in 
their  steads,  throughout  all  the  east  of  Gilead,  till  the  capti- 
vity .f  Thus  it  appears,  that  these  conquests,  reaching  to  tbe 
banks  of  the  Euphrates  and  the  shores  of  the  Persian  gaif, 
were  maintained  from  the  reign  of  Saul  to  the  time  ot  the 
Assyrian  captivity  ;  a  period  of  nearly  three  hundred  yeaxS. 

David  not  only  rendered  these  possessions  more  secure, 
but  extended  the  Israelitish  dominions  in  that  direction  by 
still  further  conquests.     Solomon,  his  son  and  successor,  built 

*  1  Chron.  V.  9,  10. 

I  Vv.  10,  22.  A  statement,  which  affords  pretty  strong  ground  foi 
believing,  that  the  land  of  Gilead  actually  extended  to  the  Euphrates. 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT   HEBKEWS.  387 

Tadmor,*  by  the  Greeks  called  Palmyra,  which  was  not 
more  than  a  day's  journey  from  the  Euphrates.  It  is  also  re- 
lated of  him,  that  "  he  had  dominion  over  all  the  region  on 
this  side  the  Euphrates,  from  Tiphsah,  (without  doubt  the 
ancient  Thapsacus  on  that  river,)  even  to  A/^ah,  over  all  the 
kings  on  this  side  the  river,"f 

Towards  the  south,  also,  the  eastern  boundary  of  Israel 
extended  pretty  far  eastward,  and  lay  in  part  beyond  the  land 
of  Moab.  Maon,  which  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  even 
in  the  days  of  Joshua,:}:  and  where  ISTabal  dwelt,§  is  described 
by  Abulfeda  as  the  farthest  city  of  Syria  towards  Arabia,  and 
as  six  days'  journey  from  the  sea,  and  two  beyond  Zoar. 
Even  in  those  eastern  deserts,  the  Israelitish  state  could  boast 
some  wealthy  and  powerful  citizens.  Three  private  persons 
in  Gilead  were  in  such  circumstances  as,  at  their  own  expense, 
to  supply  David's  whole  army  with  food  and  other  necessa- 
ries.! ^or  is  this  matter  of  wonder,  since  the  rearing  of 
cattle,  especially  in  such  extensive  pastures,  tends  to  produce 
greater  riches,  than  the  cultivation  of  paternal  fields. 

Michaelis  has  an  elaborate  article  on  the  northern  boundary 
of  the  Israelites.  He  regards  it  as  extending,  in  a  serpentine 
line,  from  the  Euphrates  to  the  Mediterranean,  in  such  a  way, 
that  Palmyra  was  on  the  south,  and  Damascus  on  the  north 
side  of  it,  and  reaching  the  sea  somewhere  about  the  thirty- 
sixth  degree  of  north  latitude.  For  a  detail  of  the  argument, 
by  which  this  line  is  established  by  the  learned  commentator, 
the  reader  is  referred  to  the  original  work. 

It  thus  appears,  that  the  Israelitish  boundaries,  at  their 
widest  actual  or  intended  extent,  embraced  a  territory,  from 
six  to  eight  degrees  of  latitude  in  length,  and  as  niany  of 
longitude  in  breadth  ;  a  territory  of  not  less  than  one  hundred 
million  acres.  It  is  true,  that  large  portions  of  this  territory 
consisted  of  mountains  and  deserts.     Much  of  it  was  fit  only 

*  1  Kings  ix.  18.    2  Chron.  viii.  4.  f  1  Kings,  iv.  24 

t  Josh.  XT.  55.  g  1  Sam. XXV.  2.  1|  2  Sam.  xvii.  27,  29. 


388  COMMENlAKIES    ON    THE 

f^i  pasturage,  and  nmcL  of  it  was  go^d  for  nothing  at  all. 
Still  it  is  likely,  that  one  half  of  it,  or  fifty  million  acres,  was 
capable  of  cultivation.  At  a  moderate  computation,  the  lands 
to  he  divided  among  the  Israelites,  on  Loth  sides  of  Jordan, 
in  the  lifetime  of  Joshua,  must  have  amounted  to  twenty-five 
million  acres.  This,  distributed  among  six  hundred  thousand 
citizens,  would  give  to  each  about  forty-two  acres.  Let  us 
still  reduce  this  quantity  one  lialf,  and  even  then  each  house- 
holder would  have  a  farm  of  twenty-one  acres.*  I  have  no 
doubt,  that  this  is  below  the  amount  actually  divided.  Yet, 
assuming  it  as  the  amount,  let  us  see  what  can  be  said  as  to 
the  capability  of  the  land  of  promise  maintaining  so  great  a 
number  of  people,  as  were  to  live  upon  it. 

My  first  remark  here  is,  that  Palestine  was  an  extremely 
fertile  country,  the  glory  of  all  lands  in  the  richness  of  its 
soil.  Moses  distinctly  so  represents  it ;  and  his  representa- 
tion is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  Josephus,f  Tacitus,:};  the 
great  Arabian  geographer  Abulfeda,§  and  the  best  modern 
travellers,  particularly  Dr.  Shaw.f  The  whole  country  was 
one  vast  and  busy  workshop  of  rural  industiy,  abounding  in 
all  the  productions  of  the  tropical  and  temperate  zones.  It 
was  cultivated  like  a  garden.  The  sides  of  the  mountains 
were  terraced,  even  to  their  summits,  and  the  cold  rocks  were 
covered  with  soil  by  the  hand  of  industry.  ISTo  judgment 
can  be  formed  of  its  pristine  fertility,  from  the  state,  to  which 
it  has  been  reduced,  by  eighteen  centuries  of  tyranny  and  de- 
vastation. Yet  even  now  intelligent  travellers  represent  the 
soil  of  Palestine  as  unusually  rich  and  productive. 

In  the  second  place,  all  the  Israelites  had  always  the  right 

*  Curius  Dentatus,  as  Pliny  informs  us,  looked  upon  that  Roman  as  a 
pernicious  citizen,  who  was  not  content  with  seven  acres  of  land,  and  did 
not  find  it  sufficient  for  his  subsistence.  At  one  time,  the  Roman  law  did 
not  allow  more  than  that  to  each  citizen. 

t  Jewish  War,  L.  3,  C.  3.  |  Hist.  L.  5,  C.  6. 

5  Tabulae  Syriae,  p.  9.  11  Travels,  pp.  336,  337. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  389 

of  pasturage  in  the  deserts,  and  thither  thej  were  accustomed 
to  drive  their  flocks  and  herds,  to  graze  upon  the  fertile  spots, 
which,  like  innumerable  islands,  dot  the  sandy  wastes  of 
Arabia.  The  consequence  of  this  was,  that  every  Israelite 
had  all  his  fields  for  cultivation.  Palestine  could  thus  sup- 
port a  much  greater  population  than  a  country  equally  good, 
in  which  large  portions  of  the  farms  are  necessarily  used  for 
pasturage.  I  am  enabled  to  illustrate  this  point,  from  the 
state  of  things  in  the  place  where  I  write,  the  township  of 
East  Hampton,  on  the  eastern  extremity  of  Long  Island.  The 
inhabitants  of  this  township  have  pasture  grounds,  to  the 
extent  of  nine  thousand  acres,  on  the  high  lands  of  Montauk, 
where  thousands  of  sheep,  cattle,  and  horses  find  abundance 
of  excellent  pasturage,  during  the  spring,  summer,  and 
autumn.  This  leaves  the  people  at  liberty  to  cultivate  a  much 
larger  proportion  of  the  remaining  land,  than  they  would 
otherwise  be  able  to  do.  And,  were  it  not  that  there  are 
other  large  tracts,  fit  only  for  the  growth  of  wood,  on  account 
of  the  lightness  of  the  soil,  I  am  persuaded,  that  the  territory 
would  sustain  a  population  nearly  double  that,  which  the 
same  number  of  acres  would  support,  under  the  ordinary 
system  of  farming,  where  each  particular  farm  must  supply 
pasturage  to  the  flock  and  the  herd.  Palestine  enjoyed  two 
advantages  over  this  place,  viz.,  first,  in  having  an  unlimited 
quantity  of  pasturage  in  the  deserts  and  mountains,  and, 
secondly,  in  the  superior  mildness  of  its  winters,  which  took 
away  the  necessity  of  providing  any  great  amount  of  fodder. 
On  both  these  accounts,  a  still  larger  proportion  of  the  land 
could  be  appropriated  to  the  sustenance  of  man ;  and  in  the 
same  proportion  its  power  of  supporting  a  numerous  popula- 
tion would  be  increased. 

In  the  third  and  last  place,  a  country  of  equal  fertility  in  a 
southern  latitude  will  support  more  inhabitants  than  in  a 
northern  one.     And  this  for  several  reasons.     As  1.  Largo 


.390  COMMEirrAEIES   ON    THE 

tracts  of  land  are  required  to  furnish  the  fuel  necessary  for 
a  cold  country ;  while,  in  a  warm  climate,  but  little  wood  is 
needed  for  fuel.  Hence  the  spaces,  which,  in  the  former, 
must  be  devoted  to  the  growing  of  wood,  can  be  used  for  til- 
lage in  the  latter.  In  point  of  fact,  the  article  of  wood  was 
very  scarce  in  Palestine.  2.  A  much  greater  amount  of 
clothing  is  consumed  in  cold  than  in  warm  countries.  Con- 
sequently, in  a  northern  climate,  a  vast  quantity  of  land  must 
be  taken  up  in  producing  cotton,  flax,  and  wool,  which,  in  a 
southern  one,  can  be  devoted  to  the  raising  of  bread  stuffs. 

3.  In  a  country  of  the  latitude  of  Palestine,  and  one  which, 
like  that,  is  cultivated  as  a  garden,  the  land  may  be  cropped 
several  times  within  the  year,  which  adds  immensely  to  its 
capability  of  sustaining  human  life.  This,  indeed,  is  an  ad- 
vantage, for  which   Moses   expressly  celebrates  Palestine.* 

4.  The  same  number  of  people  consume  less  food  in  a  warm 
country,  than  in  a  cold  one.  Men  must  be  temperate  in  a 
hot  climate,  if  they  would  keep  their  health.  They  seldom 
eat  meat,  but  live  mostly  on  vegetables.  Chardin  represents 
the  inhabitants  of  northern  Europe  as  beasts  of  prey,  in  com- 
parison with  the  Asiatics.  The  nearer  we  approach  the 
equator,  the  more  abstemious  we  find  the  people.  There  are 
millions  of  people  in  India,  who  live  on  the  value  of  a  penny 
a  day.  Even  in  Europe,  there  is  a  sensible  difference  between 
the  inhabitants  of  the  north  and  the  south.  A  Spaniard  will 
subsist  for  a  week  on  what  a  German  would  eat  at  a  meal. 
The  luxury  of  an  Englishman  displays  itself  in  the  number 
of  dishes  and  the  quantity  of  solid  meats  on  the  table ;  that 
of  an  Italian,  in  sweetmeats  and  flowers.f  But  5.  It  is  more 
important  to  observe,  that  tlie  industry  of  husbandmen  in 
countries,  where  rain  seldom  falls,  and  the  fields  must  be  wa- 
tered artificially,  surpasses  any  thing  that  our  farmers  exhibit. 
In  such  countries,  they  learn  to  make  use  of  everj^  foot  of 

*  Deut.  xxxiii.  14.  f  Rouss.  Soc.  Cont.  L.  3,  C.  8. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBKEWS.  331 

land.  They  cover  the  naked  rocks  with  soil,  and  raise  walla 
to  prevent  showers  from  washing  it  away.  Numerous  exam- 
ples of  this  are  seen  in  Switzerland.  Maundrell,  in  his 
travels,  discovered  many  traces  of  this  laudable  economy  in 
the  ancient  cultivation  of  the  holy  land. 

Thus  for  the  argument  has  been  conducted  solely  on 
grounds  of  reason.  It  has  been  of  an  a  priori  character. 
Bat  does  the  history  of  agriculture  furnish  no  facts,  bearing 
upon  the  present  inquiry  ?  Yes,  many  and  important  ones. 
From  the  evidence  given  in  1843  before  the  committee  on 
allotments  of  land  in  the  British  parliament,  it  appears,  that 
a  hundred  and  twelve  bushels  of  wheat  had  been  obtained 
from  an  acre  of  land  dug  with  the  spade ;  that  the  average 
profit  derived  from  cottage  allotments  was  at  the  rate  of  a 
hundred  dollars  an  acre  ;  and  that  one  man  on  the  eighth  of 
an  acre  of  very  indifferent  land  had  grown  a  crop  worth 
twenty-five  dollars,  or  at  the  rate  of  two  hundred  dollars  per 
acre.*  Mr.  Thornton,  in  his  Plea  for  Peasant  Proprietors, 
says,  that  a  Flemish  farmer  of  six  acres  of  moderate  land 
obtains  from  two  acres  and  a  half  as  much  grain,  potatoes, 
butter,  pork,  and  milk,  as  are  required  for  the  consumption 
of  himself,  his  wife,  and  three  children,  and  sells  the  produce 
of  the  remaining  three  acres  and  a  half  f  The  twenty-five 
millions  of  acres,  wliich,  on  a  moderate  estimate,  were,  or 
should  have  been,  distributed  among  the  Israelites,  on  the 
conquest  of  Canaan,  if  parcelled  out  into  estates  of  six  acres 
each,  would  have  supported  four  million  families  engaged 
exclusively  in  agriculture,  and  at  least  as  many  more  occupied 
in  other  pursuits.  That  is  to  say,  this  territory  would  have 
furnished  sustenance  to  a  population  of  forty  millions.  And 
when  at  its  greatest  extent,  the  land  of  Israel  must  have  been 
capable  of  maintaining  double  that  number  of  inhabitants. 

*  Cited  ia  the  N.  A.  Rev.  for  July,  1848,  f  Ibidem. 


392  LAWS    OF   THE    A2?CIENT    HEBREWS. 

Surely,  in  this  view  of  the  ease,  which  is  rational  and  solid, 
all  difficulty  as  to  the  Israelitish  territory  being  able  to  support 
the  largest  population  ever  assigned  to  it,  vanishes.  Indeed, 
the  difficulty  never  could  have  arisen,  except  upon  the  ground 
oi  a  twofold  error ;  the  error  of  confining  the  holy  land 
within  too  narrow  limits,  and  the  error  of  underrating  the 
productive  capability  of  a  given  quantum  of  soil. 


BOOK  11. 
OKGANIC  LAW  OF  THE  HEBREW  STATE. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Fundamental  Principles. 

It  is  the  proper  function  of  the  sciences  to  arrive  at  general 
principles ;  that  is  to  say,  primary,  or  general  facts,  in  which 
all  secondary,  or  j)articular  facts  are  included.  Gravitation 
may  serve  as  an  illustration  of  my  meaning.  By  this  one 
simple  principle,  astronomy  explains  all  the  complex  laws  of 
the  celestial  harmony. 

In  political,  as  well  as  physical  science,  there  are  certain 
great  principles,  true  or  false,  from  which,  in  any  given  case, 
all  the  numerous  details  of  social  organization  flow.*  Every 
state  is  based  npon  some  fundamental  ideas  ;  and  the  study 
of  those  ideas  is  the  most  important  object  of  inquiry  in  the 
study  of  its  constitution.  No  social  system  can  be  understood 
without  a  knowledge  of  its  fundamental  principles.  The  He- 
brew government,  like  all  others,  was  finmded  upon  certain 
great  maxims  of  policy,  to  the  development  and  elucidation 
of  which  the  reader's  attention  is  now  invited. 

The  first  and  most  essential  of  these  fundamental  principles 
was  the  unity  of  God.f 

To  some  it  may  have  an  odd  sound,  to  hear  announced,  aa 

*  Salvador's  Histoire  des  Institutions  de  Moise,  1.  1,  p.  63. 
■\  Deut.  vi.  4. 


394  COiriVIENTAKIES    ON    THE 

a  principle  of  political  science,  what  we  are  apt  to  regard  as 
a  nciere  religious  dogma.  But  this  can  arise  only  from  a  want 
of  due  reflection  on  the  subject.  "When  Moses  made  his  ap- 
pearance in  the  world,  idolatry  had  crept  in  on  every  side. 
It  was  firmly  established  in  all  nations.  With  its  long  train 
of  moral  and  social  evils,  it  had  become  the  common  senti- 
ment and  common  practice  of  mankind.  It  had  gained  the 
credit  of  a  settled  truth,  and  the  authority  of  an  undoubted 
principle  of  common  sense.  There  was  not  a  civil  constitu- 
tion then  in  being,  which  was  not  based  upon  the  assumed 
truth  of  polytheism.  The  Israelites  themselves  had  become 
so  infected  with  it,  that  all  the  miracles  wrought  for  their 
deliverance,  were  not  sufficient  to  cure  their  superstition,  and 
keep  them  steadfast  to  the  worship  of  the  true  God. 

A  civil  constitution,  inseparably  interwoven  with  the  wor- 
ship of  the  one  living  God,  was,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  an 
indispensable  agency  in  enabling,  perhaps  I  ouglit  rather  to 
say,  in  compelling  the  Hebrews  to  answer  their  high  destina- 
tion. By  this  means,  the  worship  of  the  true  God  would  be 
made  imperishable,  so  long  as  the  nation  continued  a  nation. 
By  this  means,  it  would  happen,  that  religion  and  the  politi- 
cal existence  of  the  people  must  be  annihilated  together. 
Whatever  reason,  therefore,  there  was  for  desiring  the  over- 
throw of  idolatry,  there  was  the  same  reason  for  incorpo- 
rating the  idea  of  the  divine  unity  into  the  political  structure 
of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth. 

Such  a  politico-religious  constitution  could  then  be  intro- 
duced without  difficulty,  since  it  was  in  accordance  with  the 
political  ideas  of  the  times.  Religious  prodigies  were  as 
familiar  as  civil  edicts,  and  as  constantly  bore  their  share  in 
the  administration  of  public  affairs.  All  the  ancient  law- 
givers called  in  the  aid  of  religion  to  strengthen  their  respec- 
tive polities.  Thus  did  Menes  in  Egypt;  Minos  in  Crete; 
Cadmus  in  Thebes;  Lycurgus  in  Sparta;  Zaleucus  in  Locris; 
and  Numa  in  Rome. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  395 

But  the  i^rocedure  of  Moses  differed  fundamentally  from 
that  of  these  heathen  legislators.  They  employed  religion  in 
establishing  their  political  institutions,  while  he  made  use  of 
a  civil  constitution  as  a  means  of  perpetuating  religion.* 
Thus  Moses  made  the  worship  of  the  one  only  God  the  fun- 
damental law  of  his  civil  institutions.  This  law  was  to 
remain  forever  unalterable,  through  all  the  changes,  which 
lapse  of  time  might  introduce  into  his  constitution.  Thus 
was  the  Jewish  lawgiver  enabled  to  secure  a  result  of  indis- 
pensable necessity  to  human  virtue  and  happiness  ;  a  result, 
which,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  could  have  been  attained  in  no 
other  way. 

In  this  procedure  Moses  has  shown  himself  one  of  the 
greatest  benefactors  of  mankind.  The  pernicious  influence 
of  polytheism  will  be  more  fully  exhibited  in  our  chapter  on 
the  Hebrew  theocracy.  Let  it  suffice  for  the  present  to 
observe,  that  the  superstitions  connected  with  it  are  a  prolific 
source  of  immorality,  crime  and  misery.  But  it  is  to  be 
carefully  noted,  that  it  is  one  thing  to  make  the  single 
article  of  the  worship  of  one  God  the  first  principle  of  a 
civil  polity ;  and  it  is  another  and  totally  different  thing  to 
make  the  numerous  articles  of  a  religious  creed,  and  their 
maintenance  among  the  people,  the  object  and  scope  of 
political  arrangements.  Moses  framed  no  symbolic  books  for 
the  people  to  subscribe ;  nor  did  he  publish  any  mere  theo]j> 
gical  dogma,  the  belief  of  which  was  to  be  enforced  by  civil 
penalties.  Such  was  the  structure  of  the  Hebrew  state,  aa 
will  be  explained  in  the  next  chapter,  that  idolatry  became, 
under  its  constitution,  a  civil  crime.  No  mere  private 
opinion,  however,  nothing  but  the  overt  act  of  idolatry,  was 

*  It  is  not  meant  to  be  asserted  here,  that  Moses  did  not  also  employ 
religion  in  establishing  his  political  institutions,  but  merely  to  direct 
attention  to  the  fact,  that  with  the  heathen  legislators  religion  was  the 
means,  and  government  the  end,  while  with  him  government  was  the 
means,  and  religion  the  end. 


396  COMMENTAEIES    ON   THE 

punishable,   under  the   laws  of  Moses,   by  the  civil  autho- 
rities.* 

I       A  second   fundamental  principle   of  the  Hebrew  govern- 

!  ment  was  national  unity. 

This  idea  was,  in  that  age,  as  new  and  startling  as  the  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  unity.  The  most  ancient  sages  made 
their  ideas  of  the  material  universe  the  type  of  their  political 
and  social  institutions.     The  Egyptian  priests  regarded  the 

*Mich.  Com.  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  Arts.  32,  33,  34,  and  245.  The  politi- 
cal prohibition  of  idolatry,  under  the  sanction  of  civil  punishment,  was 
not,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  next  chapter,  founded  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
true  God,  considered  as  a  theological  dogma,  but  on  the  principle  that 
Jehovah,  having  delivered  the  Israelites  from  slavery,  and  made  them  a 
nation,  was,  by  their  own  free  choice,  constituted  civil  head  of  their  com- 
monwealth. He  was,  therefore,  to  be  honored  as  their  king,  as  well  as 
their  God.  Even  on  the  assumption  of  the  truth  of  idolatry,  on  the  sup- 
position that  there  actually  were  other  gods,  this  principle  bound  every 
subject  of  the  Israelitish  government  to  worship  none  but  the  God  of 
Israel.  Still,  it  was  not  opinions  that  were  prohibited,  but  actions.  But, 
words  may  be  political  actions.  Blackstone,  indeed,  (B.  4.  C.  6.)  lays 
down  the  doctrine,  that  words  spoken  amount  only  to  a  high  misdemeanor, 
and  no  treason ;  for  the  words  may  be  spoken  in  heat,  without  any  inten- 
tion, or  they  may  be  mistaken,  perverted,  or  misremembered  by  tho 
hearers.  But  he  adds,  that  words  set  down  in  writing  constitute  an  overt 
act  of  treason,  for  scribere  est  agere.  But  by  the  law  of  Moses,  words 
spoken  against  the  divine  King  of  Israel  were  considered  as  compassing, 
that  is,  designing  and  aiming  at  the  overthrow  of  the  government.  They 
were  an  overt  act  of  treason,  which  was  punished  capitally.  Hence  blas- 
phemy was  a  state  crime ;  and  I  have  no  doubt,  that  to  speak  any  evil  of 
the  God  of  Israel,  or  to  deny  his  existence,  was  blasphemy,  within  the 
meaning  of  the  statute.  This  law  extended  to  foreigners,  as  well  as  to 
natives,  Numb.  15:  15.  While  Moses  provided,  that  strangers,  who  took 
refuge  in  the  land  of  Israel,  should  be  treated  with  justice  and  kindness, 
he  gave  no  protection  or  privilege  to  any  foreign  religion.  He  prohibited 
absolutely  all  manner  of  idolatry.  Still,  if  the  stranger  was,  in  his  heart, 
a  friend  of  paganism,  Moses  did  not  authorize  any  inquiry  into  his  private 
opinion.  Such  an  inquisitorial  procedure  was  foreign  both  to  his  temper 
and  his  legislation.  His  laws  gave  no  sanction  to  it.  They  were  framed 
against  actions,  not  ideas. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBKEWS.  397 

universality  of  things  as  composed  of  two  distinct  essences  ; 
the  one  intellectual  and  active,  the  other  physical  and  pas- 
sive.* This  philosophic  dogma  had  a  predominating  in- 
fluence on  the  civil  state.  In  the  political  system  framed  by 
them,  the  spiritual  essence  of  the  universe  was  the  symbol  of 
the  sacerdotal  aristocracy ;  while  the  baser  material  essence 
represented  the  common  people.  Thus  the  higher  and  lower 
classes,  the  nobility  and  commonalty,  were  separated  by  a 
gulf,  as  impassable  as  that  which  divides  the  inhabitants  of 
different  planets. 

Moses,  endowed  with  a  capacity  and  animated  with  a  prin- 
ciple higher  than  any  jjreceding  philosopher  or  statesman, 
rejecting  this  doctrine  of  dualism  in  the  formation  of  his 
commonwealth,  substituted  in  its  place  the  principle  of  na- 
tional unity.  His,  however,  was  not  that  species  of  unity, 
which  the  world  has  since  so  often  seen,  in  which  vast  mul- 
titudes of  human  beings  are  delivered  up  to  the  arbitrary 
will  of  one  man.  It  was  a  unity,  effected  by  the  abolition  of 
caste  ;  a  unity,  founded  on  the  principle  of  equal  rights  ;  a 
unity,  in  which  the  whole  people  formed  the  state,  contrary 
to  what  happened  in  Egypt,  where  the  priesthood  was  the 
state,  and  contrary  to  the  celebrated  declaration  of  a  French 
monarch, f  who  avowed  himself  to  be  the  state. 

Let  us  glance  at  the  decalogue :{:  to  ascertain,  if  possible, 
its  relation  to  this  question  of  the  unity  of  the  Hebrew  state. 
These  ten  precepts  belonged  not  simply  to  the  department  of 
ethics  among  the  Hebrews.  They  were  civil,  as  well  as 
moral  laws.  They  were  intended  to  serve  as  the  basis  of  the 
whole  system  of  civil  legislation.  They  have  suggested  to 
modern  legislators  the  first  idea  of  the  declaration  of  the 
rights  of  man. 

Mark  the  expressive  form  given  to  the  preamble  of  these 
laws.  It  is  as  significant  as  it  is  laconic.  "  I  am  Jehovah 
THY  God,  which  brought  thee  out  of  the  house  of  bondage." 

*  Herod.  1.  2.  f  Louis  XIV.  t  Ex.  xx. 


398  COMMENT  ABIES   ON   THE 

Here  the  Hebrews  are  addressed  as  one  man  ;  and  so  they 
are  throughout  the  enactment  of  this  fundamental  code.  It 
is  Isi-ael,  it  is  the  entire  people,  to  whom  the  lawgiver  speaks. 
Here  is  no  distinction  of  castes.  Here  is  no  appropriation 
of  dignities  to  one  class  ;  no  hereditary  inferiority  assigned  to 
another.  The  priesthood  had  not  at  this  time  been  instituted, 
nor  the  tribe  of  Levi  set  apart  to  its  peculiar  functions.  This 
tribe  formed,  it  is  true,  a  kind  of  literary  aristocracy,  and  its 
dignities  and  duties  were  hereditary.  Still,  as  will  be  shown 
in  our  chapter  on  the  Levitical  order,  it  was  far  from  consti- 
tuting a  nobility,  in  the  modern  acceptation  of  that  term. 
The  same  fundamental  rights  are  recognized  as  belonging 
to  all ;  the  same  fundamental  duties  as  binding  npon  all. 
The  whole  law  is  in  the  interest  of  the  whole  people.*  Social 
distinctions,  therefore,  whenever  they  arise,  must  rest  upon 
the  natural  basis  of  superior  intelligence  and  worth. 
j  Another  of  those  great  ideas,  which  constituted  the  basis 
'  of  the  Hebrew  state,  was  liberty. 

Liberty  is  a  word  often  uttered,  but  seldom  understood.  It 
is  the  theme  of  much  glowing  declamation,  but  of  little 
sober  inquiry.  Poets  and  orators  have  eulogized  the  charms 
of  liberty  ;  demagogues  use  the  word  every  day,  as  an  instru- 
ment of  political  advancement ;  yet  few,  comparatively,  in- 
vestigate or  comprehend  its  nature.  Civil  liberty,  the  liberty 
of  a  community,  is  a  severe  and  restrained  thing.  The  fun- 
damental idea  of  it  is  that  of  protection  in  the  enjoyment  of 
our  own  rights,  up  to  the  point  where  we  begin  to  trench 
upon  the  rights  of  others.  It  is  natural  liberty,  so  far  re- 
strained, and  only  so  far,  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  public 
good.  Every  law,  which  abridges  personal  freedom,  without 
a  corresponding  general  advantage,  is  an  infringement  of 
civil  liberty.  But  it  is  no  infringement  of  liberty  to  restrain 
the  freedom  of  individuals,  when  the  public  good  requires  it 
On  the  contrary,  civil  liberty  implies,  in  the  very  notion  of  it, 

*  Maimon.     More  Nevochim,  pt.  3.  C.  34. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBKEWS.  399 

authority,  subjection,  and  obedience.  Montesquieu  has  well 
defined  it,  when  he  says,  that  it  "  consists  in  the  power  of 
doing  what  we  ought  to  will,  and  in  not  being  constrained  to 
do  what  we  ought  not  to  will."*  Liberty  is  a  right  of  doing 
what  the  laws  permit.  If  one  citizen  might  do  what  they 
forbid,  all  might  do  it,  which  would  be  anarchy.  True 
liberty  would  expire  in  such  a  state  of  things. 

This  rational,  restrained,  regulated  liberty  was  amply  se- 
cured by  the  Hebrew  constitution.  In  the  preamble  to  the 
ten  commandments,f  before  cited,  God  expressly  declares, 
that  he  had  brought  his  people  out  of  the  "house  of 
bondage.-'  In  another  place  he  says  :  "  I  have  broken  the 
bands  of  your  yoke,  and  made  you  go  upright.":}:  These  ex- 
pressions, rendered  into  their  modern  equivalents,  mean  :  "  1 
have  delivered  you  out  of  a  state  of  servitude,  and  constituted 
you  a  nation  of  freemen."  "  Is  Israel  a  slave  ?"  cries  Jere- 
miah,§ — his  heart  bursting  with  sadness  at  the  contrast  be- 
tween the  freedom  secured  by  the  constitution  of  his  country 
and  the  vassalage  imposed  upon  his  countrymen  by  foreign 
arms. 

The  learned  Fleury  |  has  declared  his  opinion  on  this 
point  in  unequivocal  terms.  "  The  Israelites,"  he  says, 
"  were  perfectlj'  free.  They  enjoyed  the  liberty  cherished 
by  Greece  and  Eome.  Such  was  the  purpose  of  God." 
Montesquieu^  makes  a  reflection,  which  is  applicable  here. 
He  says,  that  countries  are  not  cultivated  in  proportion  to 
their  fertility,  but  to  their  liberty.  Tried  by  this  test,  the 
freedom  of  Palestine  will  bear  a  favorable  comparison  with 
that  of  any  nation  in  any  age  of  the  world  ;  for  never  was 
territory  more  highly  cultivated,  or  more  productive,  than 
that  of  the  chosen  tribes,  in  the  palmy  days  of  their  history. 

The  freedom,  secured  by  the  polity  of  Moses,  will  more 

*  Spirit  of  Laws,  B.  11,  C.  3.         f  Ex.  xx.  2.  J  Levit.  xxvi.  13. 

§  Levit.  ii.  14.  1|  Manners  of  the  Israelites,  C.  20. 

^  Sririt  of  Laws,  B.  18,  C.  3. 


4:00  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

fully  ap])car,  as  we  advance  in  our  inquiries.  There  is  no 
doubt,  that  the  constitution  was  as  free  as  it  could  be,  con- 
sistently with  its  own  safety  and  stability ;  and  it  is  probable, 
that  the  Hebrew  people  enjoyed  as  gi'eat  a  degree  of  personal 
liberty,  as  can  ever  be  combined  with  an  efficient  and  stable 
government. 

A  fourth  fundamental  principle  of  the  Hebrew  constitution 
was  the  political  equality  of  the  people. 

This  was  absolute  and  entire.  I  lay  down  the  following 
proposition  broadly  and  without  qualification.  The  members 
of  the  body  politic,  called  into  being  by  the  constitution  of 
Moses,  stood  upon  a  more  exact  level,  and  enjoyed  a  more 
perfect  community  of  political  rights,  dignities,  and  influence, 
than  any  other  people  known  in  history,  whether  of  ancient 
or  modern  times. 

A  few  words  will  place  this  point  in  a  clear  and  convincing 
light. 

It  is  a  principle  of  political  philosophy,  first  announced  by 
Harrington,*  and  much  insisted  upon  by  Lowmanf  and  the 
elder  Adams, :j:  that  property  in  the  soil  is  the  natural  founda- 
tion of  power,  and  consqeuently  of  authority.  This  principle 
will  not  now  be  disputed.  Hence,  the  natural  foundation  of 
every  government  may  be  said  to  be  laid  in  the  distribution 
of  its  territories.  And  here  three  cases  are  supposable,  viz. 
the  ownership  of  the  soil  by  one,  the  few,  or  the  many. 
First,  if  the  prince  own  the  lands,  he  will  be  absolute  ;  for 
all  who  cultivate  the  soil,  holding  of  him,  and  at  his  pleasure, 
must  be  so  subject  to  his  will,  that  they  will  be  in  the  condi- 
tion of  slaves,  rather  than  of  freemen.  Secondly,  if  the 
landed  property  of  a  country  be  shared  among  a  few  men, 
the  rest  holding  as  vassals  under  them,  the  real  power  of 
government  will  be  in  the  hands  of  an  aristocracy,  or  nobi- 
lity, whatever  authority  may  be  lodged  in  one  or  more  per- 
sons, for  the  sake  of  greater  unity  in  counsel  and  action. 

*  Oceana,  p.  37.        f  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  C.  2.        J  Defence,  Letter  29. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  401 

But,  thirdly,  if  the  lands  be  divided  among  all  those  who 
compose  the  society,  the  true  power  and  authority  of  govern- 
ment will  reside  in  all  the  members  of  that  society ;  and  the 
society  itself  will  constitute  a  real  democracy,  whatever  form 
of  union  may  be  adopted  for  the  better  direction  of  the 
whole,  as  a  jiolitical  body.  Under  snch  a  constitution,  the 
citizens  themselves  will  have  control  of  the  state.  They  will 
not  need  to  have  this  power  conferred  upon  them  by  express 
grant.  It  will  tall  into  their  hands  by  the  natural  force  of 
circumstances,  by  the  inevitable  necessity  of  the  case.  There 
is  no  truth  in  political  science  more  easy  to  comprehend, 
more  open  to  the  view  of  all,  or  more  certainly  known  in 
universal  experience,  than  that  the  men  who  own  the  territo- 
ries of  a  state  will  exercise  a  predominating  influence  over 
the  public  affairs  of  such  state.*  This  is  agreeable  to  the 
constitution  of  human  nature,  and  is  confirmed  by  the  con- 
current testimony  of  all  history. 

The  provision  of  the  Hebrew  constitution  in  reference  to 
the  ownership  of  the  soil,  is  that  of  my  third  supposition. 
Moses  ordered,  that  the  national  domain  should  be  so  divided, 
that  the  whole  six  hundred  thousand  free  citizens  should 
have  a  full  proj^erty  in  an  equal  part  of  it.f  And  to  render 
this  equality  solid  and  lasting,  the  tenure  was  made  inalien- 
able, and  the  estates,  thus  originally  settled  upon  each  family, 
were  to  descend  by  an  indefeasable  entail,  in  perpetual  suc- 
cession. :j; 

The  principle  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  this  argument  for 

*  England,  it  must  be  owned,  is  an  exception  to  this  remark.  But  thia 
is  owing  to  peculiar  circamstances.  The  enormous  debt  of  England  has 
created  a  species  of  property  called  funded  property,— which  has  all  the 
stability  of  landed  possessions,  and  which  is  much  more  difiFusei  among 
the  people.  The  vast  commercial  and  manufacturing  wealth  of  England 
is  another  cause  of  the  diminished  political  influence  of  land.  Hence  the 
predominant  influence  is  no  longer  in  the  territorial  property.  The  funded 
property  prevails  over  the  landed,  the  boroughs  over  the  counties. 

■j-  Numb,  sxxiii.  54.  %  Lcvit.  xxv.  23. 

26 


402  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

the  political  equality  of  the  Hebrew  citizens,  is  strongly  de- 
veloped, in  its  application  to  our  own  country,  by  one  of  our 
ablest  political  writers.  "  The  agrarian  in  America,"  says 
the  elder  Adams,*  "  is  divided  into  the  hands  of  the  common 
people  in  every  state,  in  such  a  manner,  that  nineteen  twen- 
tieths of  the  property  would  be  in  the  hands  of  the  commons, 
let  them  appoint  whom  they  might  for  chief  magistrate  and 
senators.  The  sovereignty,  then,  in  fact  as  well  as  theory, 
must  reside  in  the  whole  body  of  the  people ;  and  even  an 
hereditary  king  and  nobility,  who  should  not  govern  accord- 
ing to  the  public  opinion,  would  infallibly  be  tumbled  instantly 
from  their  places."  Such  was  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Adams  in 
regard  to  the  nature  and  operation  of  this  princij^le.  He 
held,  that  the  sovereignty  of  a  state  is  an  inseparable  attribute 
of  property  in  the  soil.  Lord  Bacon  and  Harrington  were  ol 
the  same  opinion.  The  former  uses  property  and  dominion 
as  convertible  terms  ;j;  and  the  latter  says  expressly,  that 
empire  follows  the  balance  of  property,  whether  lodged  in 
one,  few,  or  many  hands. J 

The  details  of  the  agrarian  law  of  Moses  will  occupy  our 
attention  in  a  subsequent  part  of  tljis  treatise.  The  reader, 
however,  is  desired  to  mark,  in  passing,  a  few  points  in  it, 
evincing  its  great  wisdom.  It  made  extreme  poverty  and 
overgrown  riches  alike  impossible,  thus  annihilating  one  of 
the  most  prolific  sources  as  well  as  powerful  engines  of  ambi- 
tion. With  the  denial  of  the  means  of  luxury,  it  took  away 
all  the  ordinary  incitements  to  it,  in  the  example  of  a  titled 
and  wealthy  aristocracy.  It  gave  to  every  member  of  the 
body  politic  an  interest  in  the  soil,  and  consequently  in  the 
maintenance  of  public  order  and  the  supremacy  of  law,  which 

*  Defence,  Letter  29. 

t  "  How  shall  the  plough,  then,"  he  says,  "  be  kept  in  the  hands  of  the 
owners,  and  not  mere  hirelings  1  *  *  ■<•  How,  but  by  the  balance  of 
dominion,  or  property  1" 

+  Prerogative  of  Pop.  Gov.  C.  3. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  403 

he  had  not  even  the  power  to  part  with.  It  made  the  virtues 
of  industry  and  frugality  necessary  elements  in  every  man's 
character.  Its  tendency  was  to  secure  to  all  the  citizens  a 
moderate  independence,  and  to  prevent  those  extremes  of 
opulence  and  destitution,  which  are  the  opprobrium  of  modern 
civilization.  Great  inequality  of  wealth  in  a  nation  is  a  great 
evil,  to  be  avoided  by  the  use  of  all  just  and  prudent  means. 
It  was  a  leading  object  with  Moses  to  give  to  his  constitution 
such  a  form,  as  would  tend  to  equalize  the  distribution  of 
property.  Under  his  polity,  the  few  could  not  revel  in  the 
enjoyment  of  immense  fortunes  M'hile  the  million  were  sufter- 
ing  from  want.  Misery  was  not  the  hereditary  lot  of  one 
class,  nor  boundless  wealth  of  another.  The  government 
watched  over  all,  and  cared  for  all  alike.  No  citizen  could 
justly  charge  his  poverty  to  its  neglect. 

The  agrarian  of  Moses  elevated  labor  to  its  just  dignity, 
and  removed  the  odium,  which  adhered  to  it  in  all  other  ancient 
states.  It  is  an  error,  into  which  our  best  informed  political 
writers  have  fallen,  to  suppose,  that,  for  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  the  world,  labor  has  taken  its  true  position  in  our 
country.  It  was  as  much  fostered  by  the  government,  it  was 
as  generally  practised,  and  it  was  as  honorable  among  the 
ancient  Hebrews,  as  it  is  even  in  New  England.  St.  Paul 
says,  "  if  any  man  will  not  work,  neither  shall  he  eat."*  This 
saying  of  the  apostle  was  but  the  reflection  of  a  common  He- 
brew sentiment,  and  shows  in  what  estimation  labor  was  held 
by  that  people.  Intelligent  labor,  manly  labor,  independent 
labor,  labor  thinking,  and  acting,  and  accumulating  for  itself, 
was  the  great  substantial  interest,  on  which  the  whole  fjibric 
of  Hebrew  society  rested.  Such  was  Hebrew  labor,  and  such 
the  position  assigned  to  it  by  the  Hebrew  lawgiver. 

But,  not  content  with  establishing  originally  a  full  equality 
among  the  citizens,  the  constitution  of  Moses  made  provision 
for  its  permanent  continuance.     With  such  jealous  care  die 

*  2  Thess.  iii.  10. 


404  COMMENTARIES   ON    THE 

it  watch,  tliat  tlie  people  might  never  moulder  away,  and  be 
lost  to  the  state  in  the  condition  of  slaves,  that  it  provided 
for  a  general  periodical  release  of  debts  and  servitudes ; — 
partially  by  the  institution  of  the  sabbatical  year,  but  more 
completely  by  that  of  the  jubilee.  N^  matter  how  often  the 
property  had  changed  hands,  at  the  return  of  the  jubilee  year, 
it  was  restored,  free  of  encumbrance,  to  the  original  owners 
or  their  heirs.*  The  Israelite,  whom  calamity  or  improvi- 
dence had  driven  abroad,  needed  no  longer  to  wander  for  want 
of  a  home  of  his  own  to  welcome  him.  This  was  a  wise,  as 
well  as  benevolent  provision  of  the  constitution.  It  was  ad- 
mirably suited  to  preserve  a  wholesome  equality  among  the 
citizens.  The  rich  could  not  accumulate  all  the  lands.  The 
fiftieth  year,  beyond  which  no  lease  could  run,  was  always 
approaching,  with  silent,  but  sure  tread,  to  relax  their  tena- 
cious grasp.  However  alienated,  however  unworthily  sold, 
however  strongly  conveyed  to  the  purchaser  an  estate  might 
be,  this  long-expected  day  annulled  the  whole  transaction, 
and  placed  the  debtor  in  the  condition,  which  either  himself 
or  his  ancestor  had  enjoyed.  At  the  return  of  this  day,  the 
trumpet  peal  was  heard,  in  street  and  field,  from  mountain 
top  and  valley,  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
land.f  The  chains  fell  from  the  exulting  slave.  The  burden 
of  debt,  like  that  of  Bunyan's  Pilgrim,  rolled  off"  from  shoul- 
ders, long  galled  by  its  pressure.  The  family  mansion  and 
the  paternal  estate  again  greeted  eyes,  from  which  misfortune, 
through  many  a  weary  year,  had  divorced  them.  The 
inequalities  of  condition,  which  the  lapse  of  half  a  century 
had  produced,  once  more  disappeared.  Garlands  of  flowers 
crowned  all  brows ;  and  the  universal  gladness  found  vent  in 
music,  feasting,  and  merriment.:}: 

*  Levit.  XXV.  10,  13.  f  Ibid.  xxv.  9. 

:j:  Oodwyn'g  Moses  and  Aaron,  1.  3.  c.  10.  Jahn's  Bib.  Arch.  Sect  351. 
A  reflection  of  Lord  Bacon,  in  his  History  of  Henry  VII.  (p.  72.)  is  perti- 
uent  here.     He  is  commending  the  wisdom  of  the  law,  which  required, 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  405 

A  magistracy  elected  by  the  people,  the  public  officer 
chosen  bj  the  public  voice,  was  another  of  those  great  prin- 
ciples, on  which  Moses  founded  his  civil  polity. 

The  magistrates  are  not  properly  the  ministers  of  the 
people,  unless  the  people  elect  them.  It  is,  therefore,  a 
fundamental  maxim  in  every  popular  government,  that  the 
people  should  choose  their  ministers,  that  is  to  say,  their 
magistrates.  The  people  need  councillors  of  state  and  exe- 
cutive officers,  as  much  as  monarchs,  jierhaps  even  more  than 
they.  But  they  cannot  have  a  just  confidence  in  these 
officers,  unless  they  have  the  choosing  of  them.  And  the 
people,  in  every  nation  capable  of  freedom,  are  M'ell  qualified 
to  discharge  this  trust.  Facts,  obvious  to  sense,  and  to  which 
they  cannot  be  strangers,  are  to  determine  them  in  their 
choice.  The  merits  of  their  neighbors  are  things  well  known 
to  them.  "  Should  we  doubt  of  the  people's  natural  ability 
in  respect  to  the  discernment  of  merit,  we  need  only  cast  an 
eye  on  the  continual  series  of  surprising  elections  made  by 

"  that  all  houses  of  husbandry,  that  were  used  with  twenty  acres  of  ground, 
or  upwards,  should  be  maintained  and  kept  up  forever,  together  with  a 
competent  proportion  of  land,  to  be  used  and  occupied  with  them,  and  in 
no  ways  to  be  separated  from  them."  On  this  he  observes  :  "  The  houses 
being  kept  up,  did  of  necessity  enforce  a  dweller,  and  the  proportion  of 
land  for  occupation  being  kept  up,  did  of  necessity  enforce  that  dweller 
not  to  be  a  beggar  or  cottager,  but  a  man  of  some  substance.  This  did 
wonderfully  concern  the  might  and  manhood  of  the  kingdom,  to  have 
farms,  as  it  were,  of  a  standard  sufficient  to  maintain  an  able  body  out  of 
penury  ;  and  did,  in  effect,  amortize  [transfer  as  an  inalienable  possession] 
a  great  part  of  the  lands  of  the  kingdom  unto  the  hold  and  occupation  of 
the  yeomanry,  or  middle  people,  of  a  condition  between  gentlemen  and 
cottagers,  or  peasants.  Thus  did  the  king  sow  hydra's  teeth,  whereupon, 
according  to  the  poet's  fiction,  should  rise  up  armed  men  for  the  ser\'ice  of 
the  kingdom."  This  observation  of  a  wise  and  able  politician  sets  in  a 
striking  light  the  wisdom  of  this  part  of  the  Hebrew  constitution.  If  the 
law,  on  which  Bacon  is  here  commenting,  "  did  wonderfully  concern  the 
might  and  m«inhood  of  the  kingdom."  how  much  more  the  agrarian  of 
Mo8?s ! 


405  COMMENTAKTES   ON   THE 

the  Athenians  and  Eomans,  which  no  one  surely  will  attribute 
to  hazard."*  The  people,  therefore,  though  in  the  mass  inca- 
pable of  the  administration  of  government,  are,  nevertheless, 
caj)able  of  calling  others  to  this  office.  They  are  qualified  to 
choose,  though,  as  a  general  thing,  not  qualified  to  be  chosen. 
"  la  their  sentiments,"  said  the  great  Edmund  Burke,  "  the 
people  are  rarely  mistaken." 

The  election  by  the  Hebrew  people  of  Jehovah  himself  to 
be  the  civil  head  of  their  state,  is  a  point,  which  has  been 
already  established,  in  the  introductory  essay.f  The  proofs 
need  "not  be  repeated  here.  No  fact  can  be  plainer,  or  more 
certain,  than  that  the  judges,  instituted  at  the  suggestion  of 
Jethro,  were  chosen  by  the  suflrages  of  all  Israel.  The  di- 
rection of  Moses  to  the  people,  upon  that  occasion,  is  very 
explicit.  His  words  are,  "  Take  you  wise  men,  and  under- 
standing, and  known  among  your  tribes,  and  I  will  make 
them  rulers  over  you.":{:  The  meaning  is,  "Do  you  elect  the 
proposed  officers,  and  I  will  commission  and  induct  them  into 
office."  It  is  very  observable,  that  these  magistrates  were  to 
be  taken  "  out  of  all  the  people,"  and  not  from  any  privileged 
class.  The  only  qualifications  for  office  required  were,  that 
they  should  be  "  able  men,  such  as  fear  God,  men  of  truth, 
hating  covetousness,"§  "  wise  men,  and  understanding,  and 
known  among  their  tribes."  The  possession  of  these  high 
attributes  was  enough ;  no  other  patent  of  nobilit}'-  was  re- 
quired. Mr.  Jefferson's  test  of  official  competency  is  expressed 
in  the  three  interrogatories,  "Is  he  honest?  Is  he  capable? 
Is  he  faithful  ?"  If  he  had  added  a  fourth,  "  Does  he  fear 
God  ?"  he  would  have  had  the  Mosaic  test  to  a  tittle.  Moses 
demanded  four  qualifications  in  a  civil  ruler,  viz.  ability,  in- 
tegrity, fidelity,  and  piety. 

When  the  land  of  Canaan  was  to  be  divided  among  the 
tribes,   Joshua  addressed  all   Israel  thus :  "  Give  out  IVotu 

*  Montesq.  Sp.  of  Laws,  B.  2.  C.  2.  f  Pp.  47,  48. 

t  Deut.  i.  13.  §  Exod.  xviii.  21. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  407 

imong  3'on  three  men  from  each  tribe,  and  I  will  send 
them,"*  &c.  "  Grive  out  from  among  3^011 ;"  that  is,  "  Select, 
choose  for  yourselves."  When  Jephthah  was  made  judge,  it 
is  expressly  said,  "  The  people  made  him  head  and  captain 
over  them."f  These  instances,  and  others  which  might  be 
cited,  prove,  that  the  great  principle,  that  rulers  should  be 
elected  by  the  ruled,  that  authority  should  emanate  from 
those  over  whom  it  is  to  be  exercised,  was  fully  embodied  in 
the  Hebrew  constitution. 

A  principle,  closely  allied  to  this,  viz.  that  the  people 
should  have  an  authoritative  voice  in  the  enactment  of  the 
laws,  is  another  of  those  great  ideas,  which  underlie  the  He- 
brew government ;  and  this  principle,  like  the  preceding  one, 
is  fundamental  in  every  popular  government. 

When  Moses,  on  descending  from  the  mount,  rehearsed  to 
the  people  the  laws  which  he  had  received  from  the  Lord, 
with  one  voice,  they  answered  and  said,  "  All  the  words  that 
the  Lord  has  said,  will  we  do.":j:  What  is  this,  but  an  accep- 
tance by  the  nation  of  the  constitution  proposed  to  them  ? 
The  Hebrew  constitution  was  adopted  by  the  Hebrew  people, 
as  truly  as  the  American  constitution  was  adopted  by  the 
American  peo^jle.  "  This  adoption,  by  the  Jewish  nation,  of 
the  laws,  which  Moses  brought  from  God,  was  repeated  at 
the  death  of  Moses,  and  by  a  statute,  once  in  seven  years  was 
to  be  repeated  ever  after  by  the  assembled  nation.  So  that, 
from  generation  to  generation,  once  in  seven  years,  the  tribes 
met  in  a  great  national  convention,  and  solemnly  ratified  the 
constitution.  Tliey  took  what  might  be  called  the  freeman's 
oath  to  observe  that  constitution."§  The  government,  then, 
was,  in  a  solid  and  just  sense,  a  government  of  the  people  ; 
for  the  magistrates  were  chosen  by  their  suffrages,  and  the 
laws  were  enacted  by  their  voice. 

*  Josh,  xviii.  4.  f  Judges  xi.  11. 

t  Exod.  xix.  8.  5  Beechers  Works,  vol.  1, p.  179. 


408  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

The  responsibilitj  of  public  officers  to  the  people  was  the 
seventh  fundamental  maxim  of  the  Hebrew  polity. 

In  proof  of  tliis  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  clusing  scene 
of  Samuel's  public  administration.  The  aged  statesman 
resigns  his  authority  to  the  convention  of  the  people,  by 
whom  it  had  been  conferred.  History  records  no  sublimer 
or  more  touching  scene.  He  calls  npon  his  constituents,  if 
any  had  been  injured  by  his  public  acts,  or  knew  of  any 
abuse  of  the  trusts  confided  to  him,  to  step  forward  and 
accuse  him.  With  one  voice  they  reply,  "  Thou  hast  injured, 
oppressed,  defrauded  none."* 

Several  incidents,  related  in  the  history  of  the  kings,  con- 
firm this  view.  When  Saul  was  chosen  king,  a  writing,  limit- 
ing the  royal  prerogative,  was  prepared  by  Samuel,  and  de- 
posited in  the  sanctuary,  where  reference  might  afterwards  be 
made  to  it,  in  case  of  royal  usurpation. f  A  similar  writing 
was  exacted  of  his  successors.:}:  Solomon,  during  the  latter 
period  of  his  life,  had  reigned  as  a  despot.  When  his  son 
mounted  the  throne,  Judah  and  Benjamin  were  the  only 
tribes,  which  acknowledged  him.  The  other  tribes  ofiered  to 
submit  to  his  authority,  on  conditions  which  were  not  accepted. 
But  when  the  young  king  rejected  their  terms,  they  rejected 
him,  chose  a  sovereign  for  themselves,  and  established  a  sepa- 
rate kingdom.§  These  instances  show,  that  the  people  held 
their  rulers  to  a  stern  responsibility  for  the  manner  in  which 
they  discharged  their  puVic  trusts. 

All  this  was  the  actiorx  of  the  republican  spirit  of  the 
nation ;  a  spirit,  inspired,  cherished,  and  sanctioned  by  the 
constitution.  Who  can  doubt  whether  it  was  a  constitution, 
intended  for  a  free  and  self-governing  community  ? 

A  cheap,  speedy,  and  impartial  administration  of  justice 
was  another  of  those  great  ideas,  on  which  Moses  founded 
his  civil  polity. 

*1  Sam.  xii.  1-5.  fibid.  x.  25. 

1 2  Sam.  V.  .']    1  Kings  xii.  4 ;  2  Kings  xi.  17.  { 1  Kings  xii.  1-20. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  409 

Under  the  Hebrew  constitution,  the  poor  and  the  weak 
were  not  to  be  the  victims  of  the  rich  and  the  strong.  The 
Buuill  as  well  as  the  great  *  were  to  be  heard,  and  equal 
justice  awarded  to  all,  without  fear  or  favor.  That  terrible 
and  ruinous  evil,  "  the  law's  delay,"  was  unknown  to  the 
Hebrew  jurisprudence.  Courts  of  various  grades  were 
established,  from  high  courts  of  appeal  down  to  those  or- 
dained for  every  town.  "  Judge?  and  officers  shalt  thou 
make  thee  in  all  thy  gates,"f  wa?  lie  constitutional  provision 
on  this  subject.  To  what  a  mi  ate  subdivision  the  judiciary 
system  was  carried,  appears  from  the  ordinance,  which  re- 
quired, that  there  should  be  "  rulers  over  thousands,  rulers 
over  hundreds,  rulers  over  fifties,  and  rulers  over  tens,  who 
should  judge  the  people  at  all  seasons.:}:  Care  was  thus 
taken,  that  in  suits  and  proceedings  at  law,  every  man  should 
have  what  was  just  and  equal,  without  going  far  to  seek  it, 
without  waiting  long  to  obtain  it,  and  without  paying  an  ex- 
orbitant price  for  it.  Certainly,  with  a  judiciary  constituted 
in  this  manner,  justice  could  be  administered  promptly,  while 
provision  was  made  against  the  evils  of  hasty  decisions,  in 
the  right  of  appeal  to  higher  courts  ;  in  important  cases, 
even  to  the  venerable  council  of  seventy,  composed  of  the 
wisest,  the  gravest,  the  ablest,  the  most  upright,  and  trust- 
worthy men  in  the  nation. § 

Another  vital  principle  of  the  Hebrew  constitution  was 
peace. 

A  thirst  of  conquest,  and  the  foul  passions,  which  it  implies 
and  engenders,  had  no  place  in  the  legislator's  own  bosom, 
and  were  utterly  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of  his  legislation. 
It  was  a  prime  object  of  his  polity  to  discountenance  and  re- 
press a  military  spirit  in  the  nation. 

In  the  first  place,  his  constitution  made  no  provision  for  a 
standing  army ;  and  a  soldiery  under  pay  was  an  innovation 

*  Deut.  i.  17.  f  Deut.  xvi.  18.  $  Ex.  xviii.  21. 

2  Deut.  vii.  8,  9. 


410  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

long  posterior  to  the  time  of  Moses.  The  whole  hody  of 
citizens,  holding  their  lands  on  condition  of  military  service, 
when  required,*  formed  a  national  guard  of  defence.  Thus 
the  landholders  (and  every  Israelite  was  a  landholder)  formed 
the  only  soldiery,  known  to  the  Mosaic  constitution. 

In  the  second  j^dace,  the  intensely  agricultural  character  of 
the  Hebrew  government  served  to  impress  upon  it  an  almost 
equally  pacific  character.  Light  and  darkness  are  scarcely 
more  repugnant  to  each  ther,  than  husbandry  and  war. 
Among  the  ancient  Germans,  as  we  learn  from  Tacitus  and 
Csesar,  the  chiefs,  in  the  general  council  of  the  nation,  made 
an  annual  distribution  of  the  lands  in  the  country.  The  mo- 
tive prompting  to  such  a  procedure  was,  that  the  thoughts  of 
the  people  might  not  be  diverted  from  war  to  agriculture. 
Deeply  did  those  sagacious  chieftains  feel,  for  clearly  did 
they  perceive,  that  permanent  landed  possessions,  improved 
habitations,  and  a  too  curious  attention  to  domestic  conven- 
iences and  comforts,  w^ould  beget  in  the  tillers  of  the  soil  an 
affection  for  the  spots  they  cultivated,  which  would  produce 
sentiments  and  manners,  quite  repugnant  to  their  own 
schemes  of  conquest  and  military  aggrandizement. 

Thirdly,  the  use  of  cavalry,  at  once  the  effect  and  the 
cause  of  a  passion  for  war,  was  prohibited  by  the  constitu- 
tion.f  On  the  occasion  of  a  certain  victory,  when  a  large 
number  of  the  enemy's  horses  had  fallen  into  his  hands, 
Joshua  was  directed  by  the  oracle  to  "  hough,"  or  hamstring 
them,  that  is,  to  cut  their  thigh  sinews.:}:     This  was  practised 

*  Judges  V.  23.  f  Deut.  xvii.  16. 

X  Joshua  xi.  6.  The  object  of  "  houghing"  the  horses  was  not,  as  most 
expositors,  following  Kimchi  and  Bochart,  have  represented,  to  merely 
lame  them  in  the  hind  legs  and  let  them  go,  but  to  kill  them.  A  horse 
can  be  hamstrung  in  an  instant,  and,  as  the  operation  cuts  the  artery  of 
the  thigh,  he  soon  dies  of  the  wound,  by  bleeding  to  death.  This  plan  is 
still  sometimes  used  by  military  commanders  to  render  horses,  which  have 
been  taken  in  battle,  and  cannot  be  carried  away,  unserviceable  to  the 
enemy. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBKEWS.  411 

on  similar  occasions,  even  as  late  as  the  reign  of  David.* 
The  law  against  multiplying  horses  appears  to  have  been 
faithfully  observed,  till  the  proud  ambition  of  Solomon  swept 
away  this,  in  common  with  many  other  wholesome  provisions 
of  the  national  constitution.  In  governments,  which  have 
made  conquest  a  leading  object  of  pursuit,  the  principal 
military  force  has  consisted  in  cavalry,  and  this  especially  in 
rude  societies.  In  the  infancy  of  the  military  art,  the  su- 
periority of  cavalry  over  infantry  is  very  conspicuous.  The 
fate  of  battle  depended  on  that  part  of  the  army,  which 
fought  on  horseback,  or  in  chariots.  It  is  obvious,  that  no 
fomider  of  an  empire,  in  those  early  ages,  who  intended  his 
people  for  a  career  of  conquest  and  military  grandeur,  would 
or  could  have  dispensed  with  cavalry  in  his  armies.  The 
fact  that  Moses  forbade  the  use  of  this  species  of  force,  is  a 
proof  that  he  designed  his  people  for  peaceful  pursuits,  and 
not  for  military  glory. 

But  Moses  had  another  motive  for  his  prohibition  of 
cavalry.  The  political  equality  of  all  the  citizens,  as  we 
have  seen  under  a  former  head,  was  a  darling  object  with 
him.  But  in  all  ancient  nations,  where  cavalry  was  em- 
ployed, the  horsemen,  being  necessarily  the  wealthier  mem- 
bers of  the  community,  became  also  the  more  powerful. 
The  system  threw  the  chief  political  power  into  the  hands  of 
a  few  rich  citizens,  who  could  afford  to  mount  and  bring  into 
..he  field  themselves  and  their  dependants.  This  naturally 
tended  to  the  establishment  of  monarchical  and  aristocratical 
governments.  Moses  could  not  but  perceive  this  tendency, 
and  on  this  account,  as  well  as  on  account  of  his  repugnance  to 
an  aggressive  military  policy,  he  excluded  a  mounted  soldiery 
from  the  forces  of  the  republic.  It  is  remarkable,  how 
speedily  the  substitution  of  the  monarchical  for  the  repub- 
lican form  of  polity,  led  to  the  introduction  and  use  of 
cavalry  in  the  Israelitish  armies. 

*  2  Sam.  viii.  4. 


4:12  COMMENTARIES   ON    THE 

Fourthly,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Joseph  us,  it  was 
required,  except  in  tlie  case  of  the  Canaanitish  nations,  that, 
previous  to  actual  hostilities,  heralds  should  be  sent  to  the 
enemy  with  proposals  of  peace ;  and  not  until  negotiation 
had  failed,  was  force  to  be  called  in.  This  testimony  is  con- 
firmed by  a  law  contained  in  Deuteronomy  20  :  10.  Consi- 
derable light  is  also  thrown  upon  the  point,  by  what  I  will 
venture  to  call  a  state  paper  of  Jephthah.  *  It  is  a  letter  of 
instructions  to  his  ambassadors,  directing  them  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  they  should  conduct  a  negotiation  with 
the  king  of  the  Ammonites.  The  instructions  are  drawn  up 
with  an  ability,  force,  and  skill,  which  would  not  discredit 
any  statesman  of  modern  times. 

Another  proof  of  the  repugnance  of  Moses  to  aggressive 
wars,  and  of  the  peaceful  sj^irit  of  his  general  policy,  may  be 
drawn  from  the  law  of  the  Hebrew  festivals.  Thrice  every 
year  all  the  males  were  required  to  repair  to  the  capital. f 
With  such  a  law  in  operation,  how  could  a  nation  engage  in 
schemes  of  foreign  conquest  ?  The  idea  seems  little  less  than 
preposterous. 

Finally,  this  view  of  the  pacific  character  of  the  Hebrew 
constitution  is  strengthened  by  a  forcible  argument  of  Mi- 
chaelis,:j:  in  which  that  learned  writer  undertakes  to  prove, 
that  the  sin  of  David  in  numbering  the  people,  which  has  so 
puzzled  the  commentators,  consisted,  not  in  any  ambitious 
motions,  hid  in  the  secret  chambers  of  his  own  heart,  but  in 
openly  aspiring  at  the  establishment  of  a  military  govern- 
ment, and  in  attempting,  with  that  view,  to  subject  the  whole 
nation  to  martial  regulations,  to  form  a  standing  army,  and 
so  to  break  down  and  ride  over  one  of  the  fundamental  pro- 
visions of  the  constitution, — the  many  successful  wars  which 
he  had  carried  on  having,  in  all  likelihood,  filled  his  mind 
with  the  spirit  of  conquest. 

*  Judges  xi.  12-27.  f  xxxiv.  23. 

X  Com.  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  174. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  413 

In  beautiful  harmony  with  the  peaceful  genius  of  his  insti- 
tutes, was  the  conduct  of  Moses,  M^henever  he  wished  to 
march  through  the  territories  of  other  nations.  Unlilvc  the 
mere  military  chieftain  of  ancient  times,  whose  sole  aim  was 
conquest  and  plunder,  he  always  asked  permission  to  do  so, 
promising  to  abstain  from  treading  down  the  cornfields,  and 
to  pay  for  every  thing  he  consumed,  not  accepting  even 
water.  Sihon  himself  was  not  conquered  and  despoiled  of 
his  territories,  because  of  his  refusal  to  grant  a  passage 
through  them,  nor  because  he  marched  an  army  of  observa- 
tion toward  his  frontier,  for  the  Edomites  had  done  the  same 
before,  but  because  he  proceeded  beyond  his  frontier  into  the 
wilderness,  and,  without  provocation,  attacked  the  Israelites 
first.* 

Let  us  pause  here,  for  a  moment,  to  contemplate  the  re- 
markable phenomenon,  ofiered  to  our  observation.  "What  do 
we  behold  ?  A  man,  whose  deep  sagacity,  under  the  guid- 
ance of  a  divine  illumination,  "  discerned  the  hollowness  of 
martial  glory,  in  an  age  when  battles  were  the  business  and 
delight  of  nations ;  when  hardly  any  thing  was  respected, 
either  in  societies  or  men,  in  comparison  with  military  fame ; 
and  when  public  virtue  and  civil  wisdom  dwindled  into 
nothing  before  the  splendid  sins  of  war."f  In  such  an  age,  ^ 
his  penetrating  genius  saw,  that  the  true  elements  of  public 
prosperity  lay  in  the  path  of  public  tranquility ;  and  that 
the  greatness  of  a  nation  consisted  not  in  standing  armies,  in 
memorable  victories,  or  in  uncounted  acres ;  but  in  the  calm 
virtues  of  industry,  frugality,  and  beneficence ;  in  the  blood- 
less triumphs  of  discijilined  intelligence  ;  in  the  mild  dignities, 
which  play  around  the  domestic  circle ;  and  in  the  amount 
of  individual  prosperity  and  happiness,  spread  through  the 
homes  and  hearts  of  the  land.  And  was  he  not  right  in  this  "^ 
estimate  ?  Of  all  the  evils,  which  afllict  humanity,  the 
greatest  in  magnitude,  the  most  injurious  in  its  moral  influ- 

*  Numb.  sx.  14-21 ;  xxi.  21-23.       f  Christian  Exnminer  for  Sept.  1836. 


414  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

ences,  the  most  repugnant  to  cliristiauitj,  and  the  most  ex- 
pensive of  money,  is  war.  How,  then,  can  we  sufficiently 
admire  the  wisdom  of  a  lawgiver,  who,  in  an  age  of  barbar- 
ism and  war,  established  a  government  upon  the  broad  prin- 
ciples of  equity  and  peace  ?  In  vain  does  the  imagination 
essay  to  follow,  in  all  their  amplitude  and  variety,  the 
streams  of  happiness,  which  shall  gush  forth,  as  from  a  thou- 
sand fountains,  when  war  shall  never  again  unfurl  his  crim- 
son banner  to  the  breeze,  nor  imprint  his  bloody  footsteps 
upon  the  earth.  Then  shall  religion,  learning,  social  order, 
and  regulated  liberty  become  the  inheritance  of  the  race. 
Humanity  shall  receive  purer  impulses.  Arts  shall  flourish, 
and  science  extend  her  enriching  victories.  Plenty  and  con- 
tentment shall  become  the  general  lot.  Piety,  that  plant  of 
renown,  the  fairest  flower  that  bloomed  in  the  abode  of 
jjrimeval  innocence,  shall  again  strike  deep  its  roots  into  the 
human  heart.  And  the  broad  earth,  now  scathed  and 
blighted  by  the  curse  of  its  oflended  maker,  shall  again  smile 
in  the  freshness  and  beauty  of  Eden. 

The  doctrine  that  agriculture  constitutes  the  best  basis  of 
the  prosperity  and  happiness  of  a  state,  was  the  tenth  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  Mosaic  polity. 

Moses  labored  to  impress  upon  his  people  the  conviction, 
that  their  country  was  best  adapted  to  agriculture,  and  that 
agriculture  was  most  favorable  to  its  true  and  lasting  prosper- 
ity."'^ He  represented  it  as  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey  ;  a  land  of  brooks  of  water,  of  fountains,  and  of  depths 
that  spring  out  of  valleys  and  hills  ;  a  land  of  wheat,  and 
barley,  and  vines,  and  fig-trees,  and  pomegranates ;  a  land  of 
oil-olive  and  honey ;  aland  that  drank  liberally  of  the  river 
of  heaven,  and  wherein  bread  should  be  eaten  without  scarce- 
ness.f  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  it  was  on  agricul- 
ture alone,  taken  in  its  broadest  sense,  so  as  to  include  the 
culture  of  vineyards,  olive  grounds,  and  gardens,  that  Moses 

*  Christian  Examiner  for  Sept.  1836.     f  Ex.  iii.  8  :  Deut.  i.  25,  viii.  7-10. 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  415 

saw  fit  to  lay  tlie  foundation  of  tlie  Israelitisb  state*  By  a 
provision  in  the  constitution,  before  explained,  no  Israelite 
could  be  born,  who  did  not  inherit  a  piece  of  land  from  his 
progenitors. 

Country  life  has  inspired  the  genius,  and  tuned  the  lyre,  of 
many  a  rural  bard.  Their  smiling  pictures  have  lent  new 
charms  to  nature  herself,  and  have  inspired,  in  many  hearts, 
a  taste  for  rural  scenes  and  labors.  But  agriculture  presents 
itself  to  us  under  a  point  of  view  more  positive  and  practical. f 
It  is  the  2^arent  art,  the  paramount  interest,  of  civilized  soci- 
ety. The  great  pursuit  of  man  is  agriculture.  It  is  the  nurse 
of  the  human  race.  It  has  principles  which  elevate  it  to  the 
rank  of  a  science,  a  noble  and  comprehensive  science.  In 
the  improvement  of  domestic  animals  and  the  fertilization  of 
soils,  the  most  abstruse  principles  of  physiology  and  chemistry 
must  be  consulted.  The  principles  of  natural  philosophy, 
also,  have  an  equal  relation  to  agriculture ;  for  there  is  not  a 
change  of  the  seasons  or  the  wind,  there  is  not  a  fall  of  rain 
or  of  snow,  there  is  not  a  fog  or  a  dew,  which  does  not  affect 
some  one  or  more  of  the  manifold  operations  of  the  farmer.:}: 
The  relation  of  science  to  agriculture  is  close  and  vital.  It 
is  an  error  to  suppose,  that  the  whole  education  of  a  farmer 
consists  in  knowing  how  to  plough  and  sow  and  reap,  the  rest 
being  left  to  the  earth,  the  seasons,  good  fortune,  and  pi'ovi- 
dence.  The  nature  of  soils  and  plants,  the  food  they  require, 
and  the  best  methods  of  supplying  it,  are  objects  worthy  of 
an  earnest  study.  In  a  word,  farming  is  a  science,  whose 
principles  must  be  investigated,  mastered,  and  skilfully  ap- 
plied, in  order  to  insure  profitable  crops.  There  is  no  other 
pursuit,  in  which  so  many  of  the  laws  of  nature  must  be 
understood  and  consulted,  as  in  the  cultivation  of  the  earth. 

What,  then,  shall  we  think  of  those  ancient  nations,  which 

*  Mich.  Com.  on  Laws  of  INIos.  Art.  41. 

t  Salv.  Hist.  Inst.  Mos.  1.  3.  C.  4. 

I  Wadsworth's  Add.  to  the  N.  Y.  Ag.  Society. 


no  COMMENTAEIES    ON   THE 

treated  agriculture  as  a  servile  profession,  and  refused  to  the 
tillers  of  the  soil  a  rank  among  the  citizens  of  the  state  ? 
What  shall  we  say  of  those  Greek  philosophers  and  legisla- 
tors, who  auandoned  to  slaves  and  the  dregs  of  the  people  the 
culture  of  the  lands  ?  Both  Plato*  and  Aristotlef  required 
slaves  to  till  the  land.  In  many  of  the  states  of  Greece,  agri- 
culture was  a  servile  profession.  The  inhabitants  of  con- 
quered countries  were  compelled  to  practise  it,  while  the  cit- 
izens found  employment  in  gymnastic  and  military  exercises, 
forming,  as  Montesquieu  says,  a  society  of  wrestlers  and 
boxers.  Thus  the  soil  was  tilled  by  the  Helots  among  the 
Lacedaemonians,  by  the  Periecians  among  the  Cretans,  by  the 
Penestes  among  the  Thessalians,  and  by  other  conquered  peo- 
ple in  other  republics.;}: 

l!^ot  thus  did  the  Hebrew  lawgiver  think  and  act.  He 
made  agriculture  the  great  channel  of  Hebrew  industry. 
Doubtless,  the  circumstances  of  tlie  Hebrew  people  and  the 
grand  design  of  their  polity  had  an  influence  over  this  direc- 
tion. Still,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  that  Moses  regarded  agri- 
culture as,  in  itself,  the  most  useful  and  the  most  honorable  of 
employments. 

The  honor  accorded  by  a  lawgiver  to  any  pursuit  is  a  sure 
test  of  the  esteem  in  which  he  holds  it ;  and  the  most  effec- 
tual means  of  causing  any  branch  of  industry  to  flourish 
among  a  people,  is  to  honor  it.  Apply  this  test  to  agriculture 
among  the  Hebrews,  and  what  is  the  result  ?  We  see  the 
same  men  passing  from  the  labors  of  the  field  to  the  exercise 
of  the  highest  public  functions,  and  returning  again  to  their 

*  De  Legibus,  1.  5. 

f  Pol.  I.  7,  C.  10.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  Aristotle,  in  another  place 
says,  that  the  best  republics  -were  those,  in  which  the  citizens  themselvea 
tilled  the  land;  but  this,  as  Montesquieu  observes,  was  brought  about  by 
the  change  of  the  ancient  governments,  which  were  become  democratic; 
whereas,  in  earlier  times  the  cities  of  Greece  were  subject  to  an  aristocratic 
government. 

X  Montesquieu's  Spirit  of  Laws,  B.  4,  C.  8. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  417 

private  toils.  Even  after  Lis  elevation  to  the  royal  dignity, 
Saul  goes  back  to  the  labors  of  husbandry.*  Elijah  casts  his 
proplietic  mantle  upon  Elisha,  when  the  latter  is  engaged  in 
ploughing.!  David  is  taken  from  the  sheepfold,  to  fill  the 
throne  of  his  country,  and  to  become  the  leader  and  shepherd 
of  the  people.;}:  The  highest  proof  of  the  devotion  of  a 
people  to  agi-iculture,  and  of  its  flourishing  condition,  is  the 
increase  of  population  ;  since,  among  an  agricultural  people, 
this  will  generally  be  in  proportion  to  the  increased  means  of 
subsistence.  But  nowhere,  in  the  whole  liistory  of  mankind, 
has  an  equal  extent  of  territory  given  birth  and  sustenance 
to  a  population,  as  numerous  as  that  of  ancient  Palestine.§ 
The  figures  of  the  prophets  attest  the  zeal  of  the  Hebrews  in 
preparing  their  soil,  in  removing  stones  and  weeds  and  in 
surrounding  their  fields  with  walls  and  hedges. 

Small  proprietorships  and  the  cultivation  of  all  the  territo- 
ries of  the  state  by  the  actual  owners,  was  the  policy  of  the 
Hebrew  laws.  Let  us  inquire  into  the  effect  of  this  policy  on 
the  social  condition  and  general  welfare  of  a  country. 

Under  the  system  of  small  ownerships,  Attica  reached  the 
height  of  her  prosperity,  but  Mdien  Herodes  Atticus  became 
universal  proprietor,  she  sank  to  poverty  and  misery,  "We 
look  at  Rome  under  Servius,  and  we  see  a  vast  body  of  small 
proprietors,  enriching  themselves  by  the  cultivation  of  their 
own  lands. II  ^Ye  look  again,  and  see  universal  poverty. 
Immense  tracts  are  now  in  the  hands  of  the  Scipios  and 
Pompeys,  wdio  have  replaced  the  numerous  small,  but  pros- 

*1  Sam.  xi.  5.  f  1  Kings  xix.  19. 

1 1  Sam.  xvi.  11,  12.  5  See  B.  1,  C.  9,  of  this  work. 

II  Curius  Dentatus  once  said  to  his  soldiers,  when  they  insisted  on  a 
larger  division  of  the  conquered  lands  :  "  God  forbid,  that  a  citizen  should 
look  upon  that  as  a  small  piece  of  land,  which  is  sufficient  to  support  a 
man."  (Plutai-ch's  Lives.)  He  declared  that  man  a  pernicious  citizen,  who 
did  not  find  seven  acres  sufficient  for  his  subsistence.  Seven  acres  was  the 
number  fixed  by  law  for  each  Roman  on  the  expulsion  of  the  kings. 
^.Pliny  in  Anthons  Class.  Diet.  Art.  Curius.) 
27 


418  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

perons  proprietors.  The  same  scenes  have,  in  modern  times, 
been  re-enacted  in  the  south  of  Spain.  When  the  industrious 
Moors  held  that  country,  the  hinds  were  divided  and  worked 
bj  the  owners,  who  enriched  both  themselves  and  the  state. 
But  since  these  industrious  culti-vators  of  their  own  estates 
have  been  succeeded,  in  the  ownership  of  the  soil,  by  a  few 
princely  grandees,  the  most  fertile  territories,  which  the  sun 
visits  in  his  course,  are  abandoned,  I  had  almost  said,  to 
sterility  and  desolation,*  Tluis  has  it  been  everywhere  and 
always.  General  wealth  and  comfort  have  increased  in  pro- 
portion to  the  division  of  the  land. 

The  condition  of  the  several  sections  of  our  own  country 
confirms  this  view.  Where  do  we  see  competence,  domestic 
comfort,  industry,  intelligence,  and  manly  dignity  most  ex- 
tensively diffused  among  the  masses  ?  In  those  portions, 
where  the  land  is  divided  into  small  farms,  and  every  man 
works  his  own  estate.  The  introduction  of  slavery  into 
Georgia  was  owing  to  the  system  of  large  proprietorships. 
The  fatal  influence  of  cultivation  by  tenantry  compelled  a 
resort  to  slave  labor,  at  a  time  when  slavery  was  abhorrent  to 
the  feelings  of  the  inhabitants,  as  well  as  to  the  principle  on 
which  the  colony  had  been  founded. f 

But  the  most  remarkable  exemplification  of  the  fruits  of 
the  two  systems  of  large  and  small  proprietorships  is  seen  in 
the  comparative  condition  of  England  and  France.  In  the 
united  kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  with  a  popula.- 
tion  of  twenty-six  millions,  the  number  of  landed  proprietors 
does  not  exceed  eighty-five  thousand.  In  France,  with  a 
population  of  thirty-four  millions,  the  landholders  are  five 
and  a  half  millions.  Yet  the  aggregate  wealth  of  Britain  is 
greater  than  that  of  France.  The  rental  of  the  former  country 
exceeds  that  of  the  latter  by  about  one-third. 

The  effect  of  this  state  of  things  on  the   social  condition 

*  Carey's  Past,  Present,  and  Future,  C.  4. 
j  North  American  Review  for  July,  1848. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  419 

of  the  lW3  countries  is  well  worthy  of  our  study.  Great 
Britain  has  a  million  and  a  half  of  public  paupers,  or  one  in 
eleven  of  her  whole  population  ;  and  she  expends  thirty-five 
millions  of  dollars  annually  for  their  maintenance.  France, 
with  double  her  population,  has  only  a  little  more  than  a 
third  of  this  number,  or  one  in  fifty  of  her  whole  population; 
and  the  sum  expended  on  their  support  is  less  than  two  mil- 
lion dollars  per  annum,  being  about  one  twentieth  of  the  cost 
of  English  pauperism.  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  together 
contain  fourteen  millions  of  human  beings,  whose  utmost 
possible  earnings  fall  short,  by  about  one  fourth,  of  what  it 
would  cost  her  to  maintain  the  same  persons  in  the  poor- 
houses,  notwithstanding  a  rigid  system  of  economy  is  prac- 
tised in  those  establishments.  The  consequence  of  all  this  is, 
that  the  body  of  the  British  working  people  is  fast  sinking 
into  a  state,  to  which  there  has  hardly  ever  been  a  parallel. 
At  Stockport  Assizes,  in  the  autumn  of  1841,  a  father  and 
mother  were  arraigned  and  convicted  of  poisoning  three  ot 
their  children,  to  defraud  a  burial  society  of  31.  8s.,  due  on 
the  death  of  each  child.  It  was  whispered  at  the  time,  that 
the  public  authorities  hinted  that  this  case  might  not  be  a 
solitary  one,  and  perhaps  it  would  be  best  not  to  probe  mat- 
ters too  deeply  in  that  direction.  "  Such  instances  are  like 
the  highest  mountain  apex  emerged  into  view,  under  which 
lies  a  whole  mountain  region  not  yet  emerged."  Statements^ 
like  those  contained  in  this  paragraph,  would  be  incredible, 
if  their  autlienticity  did  not  rest  on  unimpeachable  testi- 
mony.* The  English  nation  is  richer  than  any  nation  ever 
was  before  ;  and  yet  half  her  people  are  starving.  The  fable 
of  Tantalus  is  here  a  reality.  With  a  soil  blooming  in 
beauty  and  waving  with  yellow  harvests,  with  a  commerce 
whitening  every  sea,  with  workshops  studding  all  her  terri- 

*  The  authorities  relied  on  for  these  statements  are  parliamentary  re- 
ports, cited  in  three  several  articles  in  the  North  American  Review  for 
the  years  1847  and  1848. 


420  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

tory,  with  industrial  implements  and  mechanical  skill  nn- 
matched,  and  in  the  midst  of  plenty  such  as  earth  has  seen 
never,  her  people  perish  from  hunger.  It  is  as  if  some  de- 
mon had  covered  the  land  with  his  enchantments. 

Let  ns  now  turn  our  regards  to  France,  to  see  the  effect  of 
the  opposite  system  of  agriculture  ;  that  system  in  wliich  the 
lands  are  minutely  subdivided,  and,  for  the  most  part,  worked 
by  those  who  own  them.  The  French  people  are  less  edu- 
cated, less  intelligent,  less  skilful,  and  less  industrious,  than 
the  English.  They  ought,  therefore,  to  be  in  circumstances 
of  greater  destitution  and  misery ;  and  they  undoubtedly 
were  so,  before  the  revolution  of  17S9.  At  that  time  the 
minute  division  of  landed  property  commenced.  Since  then, 
wages  have  slowly,  but  steadily  increased,  and  the  social 
condition  of  the  people  has  advanced  in  the  same  ratio.  Rye 
and  wheat  flour  have  superseded  buckwheat  and  oatmeal. 
The  dress  of  the  laboring  classes  has  improved.  Their  houses 
are  better  built,  better  lighted,  better  warmed,  and  better 
furnished.  And,  while  the  rate  of  wages  has  increased, 
bread  and  clothing  have  been  cheaper ;  which  is  a  sure  proof 
of  the  growing  prosperity  and  comfort  of  the  common  peo- 
ple. There  i>s  pauperism  in  France  undoubtedly  ;  but  in  the 
rural  districts  it  is  trifling,  and  the  whole  amount  is  but 
little,  when  compared  with  the  enormous  aggregate  of  it  in 
England.* 

AVhence  this  difference  ?  What  is  the  cause  of  the  general 
misery  of  the  laboring  classes  in  England,  and  the  general 
well-being  of  the  same  classes  in  France  ?  They  have  their 
roots  in  the  respective  systems  of  landed  property  in  the  two 
countries.  To  a  great  extent,  they  are  the  result,  in  the  one 
case,  of  large,  in  the  other,  of  small  proprietorships.  The 
average  size  of  landed  estates  in  England  is  eight  hundred 
and  eighty  acres,  while  in  France  it  is  only' twenty  acres. 

"  The  profit  of  the  earth  is  for  all  "  was  a  Hebrew  maxim, 

*  See  note  to  preceding  page. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  421 

which  grew  into  a  proverb.  The  monopoly  of  the  soil  is  a 
sore  evil.  It  makes  the  many  the  slaves  of  the  few.  It  pro- 
duces ignorance,  improvidence,  destitution,  turbulence,  and 
crime.  It  is  essential  to  the  progress  of  man,  that  he  be  un- 
shackled, that  his  faculties  have  free  play.  But  this  can 
never  be,  unless  the  earth  be  owned  by  those  who  till  it. 
Ownership  of  the  soil  will  give  tone  to  the  mind,  vigor  to  the 
body,  and  earnestness  to  industry.  As  well  might  one  circle 
an  oak  with  iron  bands,  and  expect  it  to  unfold  its  majestic 
j)roportions,  as  to  cramp  the  human  mind  by  unequal  insti- 
tutions and  an  oppressive  distribution  of  land,  and  then 
expect  a  full  development  of  its  powers,  and  a  happy  state  of 
society.  "  As  the  attraction  of  gravity  is  the  great  principle 
of  motion  in  the  material  world,  so  the  possession  of  the 
earth  in  fee  simple  by  the  cultivator,  is  the  great  principle 
of  action  in  the  moral  world.  Kearly  all  the  political  evils, 
which  have  afflicted  mankind,  have  resulted  from  the  un- 
righteous monopoly  of  the  earth ;  and  the  predicted  renova- 
tion can  never  be  accomplished,  until,  to  some  extent,  this 
monopoly  has  passed  away,  and  the  earth  is  extensively 
tilled  by  the  independent  owners  of  the  soil."'''^  Great  pro- 
prietorships are  the  scourge  of  any  country.  All  history 
attests  this  truth.  The  multiplication  of  farms,  and  their 
cultivation  by  the  actual  owners,  is  the  dictate  of  true  politi- 
cal wisdom.  It  is  this,  which  peoples  the  country,  and  even 
the  cities.  It  is  this,  which  elevates  the  masses.  It  is  this, 
which  confers  dignity  upon  the  common  people.  It  is  this, 
which  stimulates  industry,  quickens  genius,  and  developes 
the  resources  of  a  state.  It  is  this,  which  gives  true  freedom 
and  independence  to  a  nation.  And  this,  to  the  broadest 
extent  ever  known  in  practical  legislation,  was  the  policy  of 
Moses. 

These  observations  will,  perhaps,  be  sufficient  to  establish 

*  Boechers  Works,  vol.  1,  p.  318. 


422  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

the  wiGcloin  of  the  Hebrew  constitution  in  its  partition  of  the 
territories  of  the  republic.  Let  us  now  see  what  can  be  Raid 
in  regard  to  the  policy  of  founding  a  state  on  agriculture 
alone.  I  shall  say  nothing  here  of  the  special  design  of  the 
Hebrew  institution,  but  shall  confine  my  inquiries  to  the 
point  of  general  legislative  policy. 

It  must  be  confessed,  as  Michaelis*  has  observed,  that  the 
extreme  indifference  of  Moses  to  foreign  and  maritime  com- 
merce is  not  a  little  remarkable.  To  some  of  the  politicians 
of  our  day,  this  will  seem  little  short  of  an  absurdity.  Yet 
it  may  be,  that  some  eiToneous  notion  lies  at  the  bottom  of 
tlieir  wonder.  The  wealth  acquired  by  Holland  and  Great 
Britain,  by  means  of  foreign  trade,  is  so  striking,  that  many 
are  apt  to  imagine,  that  commerce  alone  is  the  true  source  of 
national  prosperity,  and  that  it  is  the  greatest  benefit  which 
a  legislator  can  confer  upon  a  people.  The  mere  name  com- 
merce fascinates  their  imagination,  and  seems  almost  to  inca- 
pacitate them  for  sober  reflection  and  comjiarison.  In  the 
delirium  of  their  golden  dreams,  they  forget,  that  it  may 
prove  the  ruin  of  both  public  and  private  prosperity ;  as 
when  too  many  superfluous  commodities  are  imported,  and 
tlie  nation  is  thereby  plunged  into  the  mire  of  foreign  indebt- 
edness. 

A  main  cause  of  the  overvaluation  of  commercial  as  com- 
pared with  agricultural  pursuits,  I  imagine  to  be  this,  that  the 
gains  of  commerce  lie  more  upon  the  surface,  and  are  more 
open  to  the  general  observation,  while  those  of  agriculture 
are  of  a  retiring  nature,  and  seldom  obtrude  themselves  on 
public  notice.  It  will  not,  therefore,  be  impertinent  to  enter 
somewhat  into  detail  on  this  point,  with  the  view  of  showing 
the  superior  importance  of  the  cultivation  of  the  earth,  as  a 
means  of  national  prosperity,  and  so  of  vindicating  the  wis- 
dom of  Moses  in  founding  upon  it  his  civil  polity. 

Great  Britain  is  the  most  commei'cial  nation  on  the  glubo. 

*Com.  on  Laws  of  Mos.  Art.  39. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  423 

Her  trade  with  tlie  United  States  is  nearly  twofold  that  which 
she  carries  on  with  any  other  country.  Yet  the  entire  annnal 
movement  of  this  commerce  both  ways  about  equals  in  value 
the  crop  of  oats  and  beans  in  the  former  country.  The  whole 
foreign  commerce  of  Britain,  in  pursuit  of  which  she  over 
spreads  the  ocean  r^ith  her  fleets,  and  plants  her  colonies  in 
the  most  distant  islands,  is  actually  less  in  value,  than  the 
annual  grass  crop  of  the  British  isles.*  The  breadstuffs, 
annually  extracted  from  our  own  soil,  amount  to  more  than 
eight  hundred  million  bushels,  and  their  value  is  triple  that 
of  the  aggregate  exports  and  imports  of  the  whole  country. 
Our  grass  crop  exceeds  in  value  the  whole  outward  and  in- 
ward movement  of  our  foreign  commerce.  The  annual  Indian 
corn  crop  of  Tennessee  and  Kentucky  reaches  one  hundred 
and  twenty  million  bushels,  and  is  worth  as  much  as  all  our 
exports  to  Great  Britain  and  France.  What  is  not  a  little 
remarkable,  the  corn  crop  of  these  two  states  exactly  equals, 
while  the  agricultural  productions  of  the  single  state  of  New 
York  greatly  exceeds  in  value,  the  entire  cotton  crop  grown  in 
all  the  states  and  territories  of  this  union. f 

The  instabilit}-  of  commercial  pursuits,  and  the  greater  cer- 
tainty of  the  ultimate  rew^ards  of  agricultural  labor,  are 
worthy  of  consideration  here.  The  prizes  in  commerce  are 
comparatively  few.  While  one  man  rises,  multitudes  sink. 
The  late  Mr.  Gallatin  instituted  researches  upon  this  point, 
and  arrived  at  results,  which  seem  almost  incredible.  I  have 
scarce!}''  the  courage  to  repeat  them,  even  under  the  shelter 
of  such  a  name.  According  to  this  distinguished  statesman 
and  philosopher,  the  fortunate  individuals,  who  attain  wealth 

*  Address  of  Edward  Everett  before  an  Agricultural  Meeting  in  Eng- 
land. 

f  These  statistics  may  not  be  exactly  accurate  at  the  present  time.  The 
paragraph  containing  them  was  written  in  1842,  and  its  statements  are 
founded  on  the  Report  of  the  Patent  Office  for  the  preuous  year. 


424  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

by  trade  and  coininerce,  are  less  than  ten  per  cent  of  tlio 
whole  number,  who  engage  in  such  pursuits. 

The  phj'sical  and  moral  influences  of  agriculture  ought  not 
to  be  overlooked,  in  estimating  the  wisdom  of  a  lawgiver, 
who  has  seen  fit  to  found  his  polity  upon  it.  It  is  the  nurse 
of  liealth,  industry,  temperance,  cheerfulness,  and  frugality ; 
of  simple  manners  and  pure  morals;  of  j^atriotism  and  the 
domestic  virtues  ;  and,  above  all,  of  that  sturdy  independence, 
without  which  a  man  is  not  a  man,  but  the  mere  slave,  or 
plaything,  of  his  more  cunning  fellows.  Agriculture  tends  to 
l^roduce  and  cherish  a  spirit  of  equality  and  sympathy. 
Buying  and  selling  are  the  chief  business  of  cities,  the  giving 
and  receiving  of  wages  a  transaction  of  hourly  occurrence. 
This  produces  a  collision  of  interests  and  feelings,  which  ne- 
cessarily begets  a  spirit  of  caste,  and  checks  the  current  of 
symjDathy.  But  there  are  comparatively  few  of  these  repel- 
ling influences  in  country  life.  The  man  wdio  owns  fifty  acres, 
and  the  man  who  owns  a  thousand,  live  side  by  side,  on  terras 
of  mutual  esteem  and  friendship.  Both,  if  they  are  equally 
entitled  to  it,  have  an  equal  share  in  the  public  respect.  Both 
feel  and  own  the  bond,  that  unites  them  in  the  cultivation  of 
the  earth. 

Agriculture  begets  and  strengthens  love  of  country.  The 
heart  of  the  husbandman  is  bound  to  the  fields,  on  which  he 
bestows  his  labor.  The  soil,  which  responds  to  his  industry 
by  clothing  itself  in  beauty  and  riches,  has  a  place  in  his 
affections.  Especially,  the  circumstance,  that  his  possession 
has  come  down  to  him  through  a  long  line  of  honored  ances- 
tors, greatly  strengthens  the  attachment,  which  he  feels  both 
to  his  home  and  his  country.* 

The  agricultural  interest  is,  in  the  highest  degree,  conser- 
vative in  its  nature  and  action.  It  is  the  great  antagonist  of 
that  mad  spirit  of  radicalism  and  revolutionary  innovation, 
which  is  the   most  terrible  enemy  of   popular  institutions. 

*  Jfathew's  Bib.  and  Civ.  Gov.  Lect.  2. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  425 

This  Las  long  ago  been  observed  bj  Aristotle.  "  Husban- 
dry," he  says,  "  is  the  best  stuff  of  a  commonwealth,  such  a 
one  being  the  most  devoted  to  liberty,  and  the  least  subject 
to  innovation  or  turbulence."  The  same  thing  is  noticed  by 
Harrington.  "Tillage,"  he  observes,  "bringing  up  a  good 
soldiery,  brings  up  a  good  commonwealth ;  for  where  the 
owner  of  the  plough  comes  to  have  the  sword  too,  he  will 
use  it  in  defence  of  his  own.  The  plough  in  the  hands  of  the 
owner  produces  the  most  innocent  and  steady  genius  of  a 
commonwealth.""^ 

It  is  in  the  scenes  and  occupations  of  country  life,  that  the 
mind  is  most  tranquil,  sober,  and  unclouded,  [t  is  in  such 
an  atmosphere,  that  it  can  discern  most  clearly  the  relations 
of  things,  and  look  beyond  the  events  of  a  day.  From  amid 
the  deep  calm  of  rural  pursuits,  free  states  have  drawn  many 
of  their  most  illustrious  patriots  and  civilians. f  The  influence 
of  agriculture,  therefore,  is  rather  favorable,  than  adverse,  to 
those  exalted  and  commanding  civil  qualities,  which  form 
the  consummate  statesman.  A  Hebrew  farmer  was  sum- 
moned from  the  quiet  of  a  pastoral  life  on  the  distant  plains 
of  Midian,  to  become  the  founder  and  lawgiver  of  a  mighty 
republic.  A  Roman  farmer  was  called  from  his  plough  to 
the  helm  of  state,  at  a  crisis  of  imminent  peril  to  his  coun- 
try's welfare.  And  an  American  farmer  led  the  revolu- 
tionary armies  to  victory,  and  secured  for  his  grateful  and 
admiring  countrymen  the  blessings  of  liberty,  independence, 
and  self-government. 

In  a  word,  this  great  business,  the  cultivation  of  the  earth, 
lies,  so  far  as  any  branch  of  human  industry  can  be  said  to 
lie,  at  the  foundation  of  all  that  is  important  aiid  valuable  in 
civil  society.  And  if,  as  Mr.  Webster;}:  once  said,  if  it  was 
for  his  sins  that  man  was  condemned  to  till  the  ground,  it 

*  Oceaua,  p.  30.  f  Mat.  Bib.  and  Civ.  Gov  Lect.  2. 

X  Address  at  Rochester  to  the  N.  Y.  Agricultural  Society. 


426  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

was  the  most  merciful  judgment  that  almighty  benignity 
could  have  inflicted  upon  him. 

I  promised,  in  considering  the  expediency  of  founding  a 
state  on  agriculture,  to  confine  myself  to  the  point  of  general 
legislative  policy.  Let  me  recal  that  promise,  so  far  as  just 
to  advert  to  the  more  immediate  reasons,  which  may  be  sup- 
posed to  have  moved  Moses  to  give  no  encouragement  to 
commerce.  They  were  probably  such  as  these  :  1.  Commerce 
would  tend  to  counteract  the  first  and  highest  principle  of  his 
polity,  since  it  would  lead  the  Israelites  to  contract  intimacies 
with  foreign  nations,  which  could  hardly  fail  to  draw  them 
into  idolatry.  2.  It  would  entice  too  many  citizens  to  leave 
their  own  country  and  settle  in  foreign  lands,  which  would 
weaken  the  sentiment  of  patriotism,  and  at  last  cause  them 
to  forget  their  relations  and  their  home.  The  merchant  is, 
in  some  sense,  a  citizen  of  the  world,  and  has  no  such  ties, 
either  of  interest  or  affection,  binding  him  to  his  native  land, 
as  the  man,  who  lives  upon  his  hereditary  farm.  3.  It  would 
introduce  luxurious  tastes  and  habits,  before  the  nation  was 
rich  enough  to  bear  the  expense  of  their  indulgence.  Com- 
merce is  more  apt  to  be  hurtful,  than  beneficial,  in  the  infancy 
of  a  state.  4.  Maritime  commerce  would  be  likely  to  stir  up 
enemies,  against  whom  they  could  not  successfully  contend, 
without  special  divine  assistance,  which  it  would  be  irrational 
to  expect,  when  engaged  in  pursuits,  prejudicial  to  true  re- 
ligion. It  would,  in  all  probability,  have  embroiled  them 
with  the  Sidonians  and  Tyrians,  just  as,  in  modern  times,  we 
have  seen  France  incurring  the  irreconcileable  enmity  of 
England  and  Holland,  by  the  establishment  of  an  East  India 
trading  company.  5.  The  vicinity  of  these  two  commercial 
nations,  and  the  constant  passage  of  Asiatic  trading  caravans 
to  Egypt,  secured  to  the  Israelites  all  the  most  important  ad- 
vantages of  foreign  commerce.* 

I  should,  however,  fail  to  do  iustice  to  the  Mosaic  ^egisla- 

*  See  on  this  subject  Mich.  Com.  on  the  Laws  of  Mos.  Art.  39. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  42T 

tion,  if  I  were  to  leave  this  topic,  without  adverting  to  one 
branch  of  commerce,  with  wliich  no  nation  can  dispense 
without  essential  detriment  to  its  prosperity — I  mean  a  do- 
mestic trade,  carried  on  between  the  different  parts  of  the 
same  country.  For  such  an  internal  commerce,  provision 
was  made  in  the  national  festivals,  whereby  thrice  every 
year  the  entire  male  population  of  Palestine  was  assembled 
at  Jerusalem.  Religious  conventions  of  the  kind  have  gene- 
rally been  made  subservient  to  the  purposes  of  commerce. 
The  fairs,  so  common  in  Germany,  originated  at  public 
masses,  to  which  the  people  flocked  from  every  quarter.  The 
holy  pilgrimages  to  Mecca  gave  a  strong  impulse  to  the  com- 
merce of  Arabia.  In  a  similar  way  the  interests  of  internal 
trade  were  consulted  in  the  institutes  of  Moses.  Tet  it  was 
done  in  such  a  manner,  that  the  carrying  of  it  on  could  not 
become  a  distinct  employment,  but  would  merely  occupy  the 
weeks  of  leisure  from  the  toils  of  agriculture  : — before  the 
harvest  at  the  feast  of  the  passover ;  after  harvest  at  the  feast 
of  pentecost ;  and  on  the  conclusion  of  the  vintage,  at  the 
feast  of  tabernacles.* 

As  for  foreign  commerce,  to  expand  a  little  hint  contained  in 
the  last  paragraph  but  one,  the  country  of  the  Hebrews  was 
so  situated,  that  they  could  enjoy  its  advantages,  without  en- 
gaging in  it  themselves.  The  Phenician  cities.  Tyre  and 
Sidon,  were  on  their  borders,  ready  to  supply  them  with  all 
they  wanted  in  return  for  their  agricultural  productions. 
The  rich  caravans  of  the  desert  continually  swept  by  them, 
affording  them,  without  expense  or  hazard  to  themselves,  the 
benefit  of  the  enterprize  of  foreign  nations.  Moses  endeavored 
to  make  his  countrymen  content  under  their  vines  and  fig 
trees,  and  to  convince  them,  that  in  these  unambitious  cares 
and  labors  they  would  find  the  most  solid  prosperity  and 
happiness.  And  was  he  not  right  in  this  judgment?  It  is 
true,  that   his   hopes  were   disappointed.      This   unaspiring 

*Mich.  Com.  on  the  Laws  of  Mos.  Art.  39. 


428  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

emplcyment  was  too  quiet  for  his  countrymen,  when  war  was 
the  business  of  the  rest  of  the  world.  But  the  event  proved 
the  truth  of  his  principles  and  predictions.  Solomon  laid 
Ophir  and  Tarshish,  the  East  and  West  Indies  of  his  day, 
under  contribution.  He  had  his  harbors  in  the  Mediterranean 
and  the  Ked  Sea.  He  built  Tadmor  in  the  desert,  now  a 
marble  wilderness,  as  a  station  for  his  caravans.  Wealth 
flowed  in  through  a  thousand  channels.  But  as  the  prophetic 
eye  of  Moses  had  foreseen,  and  his  prophetic  voice  forewarned, 
it  proved  the  ruin  of  his  country.  It  became  a  golden  weight, 
which  ground  its  free  institutions  to  the  dust.* 

But,  although  Moses  made  no  laws  favoring  foreign  com- 
merce, his  legislation  was  far  from  being  chargeable  with  the 
illiberality  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  laws,  or  the  bigotry  of 
the  early  canonists.  The  profession  of  a  shopkeeper  was 
infamous  among  the  Greeks,  as  it  obliged  a  citizen  to  wait  on 
a  slave  or  a  stranger.f  This  was  more  than  the  haughty 
spirit  of  Grecian  liberty  could  brook.  Hence  Plato,  in  his 
laws,:}:  makes  it  a  criminal  ofience  in  a  citizen  to  concern  him- 
self with  trade,  and  orders  such  an  one  to  be  punished.  The 
civil  law  treated  commerce  as  a  dishonorable  occupation,  and 
forbade  the  exercise  of  it  to  persons  of  birth,  rank,  or  fortune. 
The  Claudian  law  forbade  the  senators  to  have  any  ship  at 
sea,  which  held  more  than  forty  bushels. §  The  canon  law 
went  farther  still,  and  declared  commerce  inconsistent  with 
Christianity.  At  the  council  of  Melfi,  under  Poj^e  Urban  II, 
in  the  year  1090,  the  canonists  decreed,  that  it  was  impossi- 
ble, with  a  safe  conscience,  to  exercise  the  ti'ade  of  a  merchant. 
The  decree  was  to  the  effect,  that  a  merchant  could  rarely,  if 
ever,  pursue  a  conduct  pleasing  to  God ;  that  no  christian 
ought  to  become  a  merchant ;  and  that  if  any  of  the  faithful 

*  See  an  able  article  on  Moses  and  his  Institutions  in  the  Christian  Ex- 
aminer for  Sept.  1836. 

t  Montesq.  Sp.  of  Laws,  B.  4,  C.  8. 
J  B.  2.  ^  Liv.  B.  21. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  429 

meddled  witli  merchandise,  he  should  be  excluded  from  the 
pale  of  the  churcli.* 

Again,  the  Hebrew  state  was  founded  on  the  industry  of 
all  the  citizens.  This  was  the  eleventh  of  those  fundamental 
principles,  which  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  constitution. 

This  idea  has  been  partially  developed  already  ;  but  it  was 
BO  vital  to  the  Hebrew  legislation,  that  it  deserves  a  distinct 
consideration.  We  have  seen  that  a  leading  object  of  Moses 
was  to  make  the  country  of  the  Hebrews  a  vast  and  busy 
scene  of  rural  industry.  Kow,  the  culture  of  the  earth  re- 
quires a  great  number  and  variety  of  implements  ;  and  a  soil 
of  but  moderate  fertility  will  afford  sustenance  to  a  much 
larger  population  than  is  required  for  its  tillage.  In  these 
two  ideas,  behold  the  germ  of  an  effective  system,  of  mecha- 
nical industry,  and  a  powerful  stimulus  to  the  cultivation  and 
development  of  mechanical  skill. 

The  lawgiver's  first  care  was  the  cultivation  of  the  land  ; 
his  next  to  provide,  that  the  people  might  be  conveniently 
and  comfortably  lodged.  He  enjoined  upon  all  to  labor,  that 
they  might  not  only  eat  and  be  satisfied,  but  that  they  might 
also  build  goodly  houses,  and  dwell  therein.f  The  counsel  of 
Solomon  was  but  an  echo  of  this  Mosaic  law  :  "  Prepare  thy 
work  without,  and  make  it  fit  for  thyself  in  the  field;  and 
afterwards  build  thine  house.'"':}: 

The  various  objects  of  necessity,  convenience,  and  luxury, 
enumerated  in  the  sacred  books,  prove  to  us,  that  industry 
and  the  arts  were  far  from  being  in  a  depressed  state  among 
the  Hebrews.  They  made  divers  stuffs  of  wool,  cotton,  goat's 
hair,  and  some  say  of  silk.§  The  art  of  dyeing  was  in  use 
among  them,  and  reached  a  high  perfection.  Their  principal 
colors  were  blue,  crimson,  purple,  and  yellow,  which  were 
obtained  from  vegetables,  fishes,  and  minerals.  They  labored 
especially  to  impart  a  snowy  whiteness  to  their  fabrics  used 

*  Blackstone's  Com.  B.  1.  C.  7. 

f  Deut.  viii.  12.  J  Prov.  xxiv.  27.  ^  Ex.  xxxix. 


430  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

for  clothing.  Rich  stuffs,  interwoven  with  threads  of  gold, 
and  adorned  with  fringes  of  variegated  colors,  presented  to 
the  eye  designs  of  various  sorts.* 

In  tlie  construction  of  the  tabernacle,  we  read  of  fine 
twined  linen,  and  of  broad  tapestries,  covered  with  beautiful 
figures  of  delicate  workmanship,  and  joined  to  each  other  by 
clasps  of  gold.  The  details  in  Exodus  respecting  the  propor- 
tions of  the  various  pieces,  which  formed  the  carpentry  of 
this  portable  temple,  and  the  numerous  articles  which  consti- 
tuted its  furniture,  indicate  the  use  of  a  great  number  of 
instruments,  proper  for  dividing  and  measuring.f 

Together  with  the  arts  of  carpentry,  founding  and  pottery, 
the  Israelites  brought  from  Egypt  the  art  of  engraving  pre- 
cious stones,  the  art  of  working  metals,  the  art  of  inlaying  in 
gold,  and  the  art  of  moulding.  The  curtains  of  the  taber- 
nacle with  their  ornaments,  the  ark  overlaid  with  gold,  the 
mercy-seat  with  its  cherubim,  the  table  of  show-bread  with 
its  furniture,  the  golden  candlestick,  the  vail,  the  altars  of 
burnt  offering  and  incense,  the  ephod,  with  its  curious  girdle, 
the  breastplate  with  its  mysterious  urim  and  thummim,  the 
priestly  vestments,  and  all  the  other  paraphernalia  of  the 
royal  tent,  must  have  required,  for  their  construction,  a  high 
degree  of  mechanical  ingenuity.:}: 

In  the  reign  of  Solomon  the  arts  shone  out  in  full  efful- 
gence. The  temple,  the  royal  palaces,  their  rich  furniture, 
superb  gardens,  beautiful  works  in  gold  and  ivory,  splendid 
concerts  of  vocal  and  instrumental  music,  roads  multiplied 
and  handsomely  paved,  towns  and  fortresses  built  and  repair- 
ed, and  the  great  marble  city  of  Palmyra,  starting  into  life 
like  a  vision  of  beauty,  attest  the  encouragement  afforded  to 
the  arts  by  that  munificent  monarch.§ 

The  indignant  rebuke  of  the  prophet  Amos  to  the  rich  and 
luxurious  idlers  of  his  day,  is  a  proof  both  of  the  progress  of 

*  Salv.  Inst,  de  Moise,  1.  3,  c.  5.  f  Ibid.  1.  3,  c.  5. 

X  bid.  1.  3,  c.  5,  I  Ibid,  1.  3,  c.  5. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  431 

Jewisl^.  art  and  of  the  stern  demand  for  labor,  wLich  the 
Jewish  law  made  upon  all.  "  Woe  to  them  that  are  at  ease 
in  Zion  |  *  *  *  that  lie  upon  beds  of  ivory,  and  stretch  them- 
selves upon  their  couches,  and  eat  the  lambs  of  the  flock, 
and  the  calves  out  of  the  midst  of  the  stall ;  that  chant  to 
the  sound  of  the  viol,  and  invent  to  themselves  instruments 
of  music,  like  David  ;  that  drink  wine  in  bowls,  and  anoint 
themselves  with  the  chief  ointments  ;  but  they  are  not  grieved 
for  the  affliction  of  Joseph."* 

Isaiah,  complaining  of  the  luxury  of  the  daughters  of  Zion, 
enumerates  more  than  twenty  articles  of  their  toilet,  all  costly 
or  elegant,  which  are  as  clear  an  indication  of  the  state  of 
Jewish  art,  as  they  are  of  the  pride  and  ostentation  of  the 
Jewish  ladies  :  "  In  that  day  the  Lord  will  take  away  the 
bravery  of  their  tinkling  ornaments  about  their  feet,  and 
their  cauls,  and  their  round  tires  like  the  moon,  the  chains, 
and  the  bracelets,  and  the  mufflers,  the  bonnets,  and  the 
ornaments  of  the  legs,  and  the  headbands,  and  the  tablets, 
and  the  ear-rings,  the  rings  and  the  nose  jewels,  the  change- 
able suits  of  apparel,  and  the  mantles,  and  the  wimples,  and 
the  crisping  pins,  the  glasses  and  the  fine  linen,  and  the 
hoods  and  the  vails."f 

At  the  time  of  the  captivity,  artists  abounded  in  Jerusa- 
lem. Of  ten  thousand  heads  of  families,  carried  to  Babylon 
at  the  first  invasion,  one  thousand  were  workmen  in  wood 
and  in  metals.  Winkelman,  in  his  history  of  art,  has  made 
the  following  observation  on  this  fact :  "  We  are  but  slightly 
acquainted  with  art  among  the  Hebrew  people ;  nevertheless, 
it  must  have  reached  a  certain  degree  of  perfection,  at  least 
in  design  and  finish.  Among  the  artists  whom  Nebuchad- 
nezzar carried  captive  from  the  single  city  of  Jerusalem, 
were  a  thousand,  skilled  in  inlaid  work.  It  would  be  difli- 
cult  to  find  as  many  in  the  largest  of  our  modern  cities. ":|: 

It  is  sometimes  made  matter  of  reproach  against  the  Ile- 

*  Amos  vi.  1-6.  f  Is.  iii.  18-23.  J  Salv.  1.  3,  c.  5. 


432  COMMENTAEIES    ON   THE 

bre-vs,  that  they  left  none  of  those  great  monuments  like  the 
pyramids  and  temples  of  Egypt,  which  struggle  successfully 
against  the  devastations  of  time.  How  little  do  such  persons 
appreciate  the  true  grandeur  of  nations  !  There  were  not 
slaves  in  Palestine  to  erect  such  ostentatious  structures ;  and 
free  labor  employs  itself  about  things  more  useful.  Yoltaire 
himself  takes  notice  of  this  fact.  He  regards  the  pyramids 
as  a  proof  of  the  slavery  of  the  Egyptians ;  and  says  that 
nothing  could  constrain  a  free  people  to  rear  such  masses. 
The  temple,  the  palace  of  their  heavenly  king,  is  the  only 
monumental  edifice,  of  which  the  memory  has  been  pre- 
served. This  shared  the  fate  of  the  JeM^ish  people ;  and, 
after  having  served  as  a  fortress  in  the  last  efforts  of  liberty, 
the  nation  and  the  temple  fell  together.* 

Since  that  day  the  fate  of  the  Jewish  people  has  been  one 
of  almost  unmingled  bitterness.  "  Scattered  and  pealed " 
has  been  deeply  engraved  upon  its  forehead.  But  they  have 
always  displayed  much  of  the  energy,  activity,  and  indus- 
trious application  to  business,  which  distinguished  their  re- 
mote ancestors.  This  even  their  worst  enemies  have  been 
compelled  to  acknowledge.  An  old  Spanish  chronicler,  with 
an  ingenuousness  which  would  be  amusing,  if  it  did  not  recal 
painful  memories,  says  of  them  :  "  This  portion  of  humanity 
was  at  least  good  to  awaken  industry  and  to  pay  imposts."f 

How  far  these  permanent  elements  of  industry  may  have 
been  the  result  of  the  exact  and  positive  spirit  of  their  ancient 
law,  it  is  impossible  now  to  trace  with  distinctness.  I  do  not 
affirm,  but  I  suggest  for  reflection,  whether  the  economy,  the 
ability,  the  tenacity,  and  the  energy  of  the  modern  Jews,  are 
not  due  to  some  profound  cause,  which  is  to  be  sought  in  the 
great  principles  of  their  original  institution. 

Again,  the  inviolability  of  private  property,  and  the  sacred- 
ness  of  the  family  relation,  are  principles,  which  entered 
essentially  into  the  Hebrew  constitution. 

*  Salv.  1.  3,  c.  5.  t  Ibid.  1.  3,  c.  5. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  433 

Tt  cannot  be  necessary  to  adduce,  at  any  length,  the  proof 
of  this  proposition,  for  no  one  can  open  the  Pentateuch, 
without  meeting  it  on  every  page.  The  whole  scope  of  the 
second  table  of  the  decalogue  is  to  guard  the  institution  oi 
the  family  and  the  institution  of  property.  The  right  and  the 
advantage  of  private  property  are  everywhere  assumed  by 
Moses.  To  facilitate  its  increase,  to  regulate  its  use,  and  to 
])rovide  for  its  distribution  are  leading  objects  of  his  law.  In 
this  the  Hebrew  legislator  does  but  echo  a  sentiment  common 
to  all  just  and  wise  lawgivers.  A  political  community  could 
not  be  organized,  except  upon  a  basis  of  individual  property 
and  right.  This  is  the  only  bond,  strong  enough  to  hold  such 
an  association  together.  Not  even  a  savage  tribe  could  live 
together  without  property.  The  ownership  by  each  member 
of  the  body  politic  of  his  tools,  arms,  clothing,  and  habitation, 
is  essential  to  the  rudest  form  of  civil  society.  T^one  would 
be  willing  to  till  the  ground,  if  others  had  an  equal  right  with 
him  to  gather  the  harvest.  None  would  even  erect  a  hut,  if 
his  next  neighbor  might  enter  and  take  possession  the  moment 
it  was  linislied.  If  the  idle  and  the  industrious,  if  those  who 
waste  and  those  who  save,  have  the  same  rights,  and  are  to 
share  alike  in  the  fruits  of  the  earth  and  the  products  of  labor, 
then  prudence,  frugality,  thrift,  and  provision  for  the  future 
become  simple  impossibilities.  All  this  is  recognized  in  the 
legislation  of  Moses.  That  legislation  has  no  sympathy  with 
a  social  theory,  which  has  of  late  gained  some  currency  in 
the  world ;  a  theory,  which  places  activity,  industry,  ability, 
and  virtue,  upon  the  same  level  with  indolence,  idleness,  inca- 
pacity, and  vice ;  a  theory,  which  begins  by  offering  a  pre- 
mium for  ignorance  and  incompetency,  and  which  must  end 
in  the  annihilation  of  all  industry,  all  emulation,  and  every 
opening  faculty.  Neither  has  the  legislation  of  Moses  any 
sympathy  Avith  another  principle,  which  has  a  prevalence 
perhaps  still  more  extensive, — I  mean  the  principle  of  a  sep- 
aration of  the  pecuniary  interests  of  the  husband  and  wife. 
28 


434  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

The  husband  and  wife  are  regarded  by  the  Mosaic  law  as  one 
person,  having,  as  it  were,  but  one  soul,  one  interest,  one  will. 
Doubtless  the  doctrine,  that  the  man  is  the  head  of  the 
woman,  and  that  the  property  of  the  latter  becomes,  as  a 
result  of  the  nuptial  tie,  part  and  parcel  of  that  of  the  former, 
is  sometimes  productive  of  much  hardship  and  suffering;  but 
who,  that  reflects  on  the  frailties  and  passions  of  human  na- 
ture, can  doubt,  that  the  contrary  doctrine,  adopted  and  ap- 
plied as  a  practical  principle  of  legislation,  would  be  attended 
with  evils  far  greater,  both  in  number  and  magnitude  ? 

The  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  law  is  opposed  to  the  modern  rad 
icalism  of  woman's  rights ;  a  radicalism,  which  boldly  avows 
its  purpose  of  "  subverting  the  existing  order  of  society  and 
dissolving  the  existing  social  compact."  Moses  did  not  favor 
the  manhood  of  woman.  "  Unto  the  woman  he  said,  *  *  * 
thy  desire  shall  be  to  thy  husband,  and  he  shall  rule  over 
thee."*  Paul  interprets  this  precept,  when  he  says  of  women, 
"  It  is  not  permitted  to  them  to  speak  in  the  churches ;  but 
they  are  commanded  to  be  under  obedience,  as  also  saith  the 
law."f  He  speaks  in  the  very  spirit  of  Moses,  when  he  says, 
"The  man  is  the  head  of  the  w^oman ;":{;  "wives,  submit 
yourselves  unto  your  own  husbands  ;"§  "Adam  was  first 
formed,  then  Eve."|  Man  has  a  mission,  and  so  has  woman, 
to  which  the  wisdom  that  never  errs,  has  adapted  the  bodily 
and  mental  constitution  of  each.  Man's  mission  is  to  subdue 
and  till  the  earth,  to  cultivate  the  mechanic  arts,  to  make 
roads  and  dig  canals,  to  carry  on  commerce,  to  encounter  the 
perils  and  fatigues  of  war,  to  institute  and  administer  govern- 
ment, to  be  the  shield  of  woman  in  moments  of  danger  and 
sudden  alarm,  in  a  v^'ord,  to  perform  the  rough  business  of 
life, — that  w^hich  requires  physical  strength  and  endurance. 
Woman's  mission,  while  it  has  no  less  of  dignity,  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  this.     It  is  to  be  the  light  and  joy  of  the  house- 

*  Gen.  iii.  16.  f  1  Cor.  xiv.  34.  J  ILid.  xi.  3. 

§  Eph.  V.  22.  II  1  Tim.  ii.  13. 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  435 

liold,  to  n<.»urisli  and  train  the  immortal  children  witlin  its 
precincts,  to  mould  the  whole  mass  of  mind  Avhile  in  its  most 
plastic  state,  to  fill  the  throne  of  the  heart,  to  be  the  priestess 
In  the  sanctuary  of  home,  to  be  the  comfort  and  support  of 
man  in  seasons  of  sorrow  and  of  suffering,  to  move  in  the 
realm  of  ignorance  and  want,  to  shine,  to  cheer,  and  to  bless 
in  all  the  varied  ministrations  of  sympathy  and  love,  from 
the  cradle  to  the  grave.  What  purer,  nobler,  holier  realm 
can  she  desire?  "The  true  nobility  of  woman  is  to  keep  her 
own  sphere,  and  to  adorn  it."  "* 

Another  essential  principle  of  the  legislative  policy  of 
Moses  was  the  sanctity  of  human  life. 

'No  legislation  of  antiquity  approaches  that  of  the  Hebrew 
lawgiver,  in  its  solicitude  to  guard  the  lives  of  men.  The 
prohibition  against  killing  was  one  of  the  ten  precepts,  which 
formed  what  may  be  called  the  magna  charta  of  the  Hebrew 
state. f  The  crime  of  murder  was  punished  with  death. 
There  was  no  redemption.  It  was  declared,  that  the  land 
could  not  be  purged  of  the  stain  of  blood,  except  by  the 
blood  of  him  who  had  shed  it.:j:  Even  an  ox,  which  had  gored 
a  man  to  death,  and,  by  parity  of  reason,  any  other  animal,  as 
a  goat,  a  dog,  or  a  horse,  that  had  killed  a  person  by  pushing, 
biting,  or  kicking,  was  to  be  stoned  ;§  not,  indeed,  to  jDunish 
the  beast,  but  the  owner,  and  so  to  oblige  him  to  be  careful 
in  preventing  his  oxen,  dogs,  and  other  domestic  animals, 
from  injuring  his  neighbors.  The  flesh  of  the  goring  ox  could 
not  be  eaten,!  a  prohibition  which  served  to  keep  up  a  whole- 
some horror  of  murder,  at  the  same  time  that  it  punished  the 
man  by  the  total  loss  of  his  beast.  A  man,  who  built  a  house, 
was  required  to  make  a  battlement,  or  balustrade,  to  the  roof.^ 
If  he  neglected  to  do  this,  and  a  person  fell  from  the  roof  in 
consequence,  and  was  killed,  the  owner  of  the  house  brought 
bloodguiltiness  upon  himself;  he  was  considered  in  the  light 

*  Mrs.  Sigourney.  f  Ex.  xx.  13.  J  Num.  xsxv.  33. 

2  Ex.  xxi.  28.  II  Ibid.  xxi.  28  T[  Deut.  xxii.  8. 


436  COMlVrENTATilES   ON   THE 

of  a  murderer.*  A  verv  peculiar  statute  concerning  homicide 
by  an  unknown  perse n  is  recorded  in  Deut.  21 :  1-9.  This 
statute  will  be  particularly  examined  in  a  subsequent  part  of 
this  wt)rk,  and  I  forbear,  therefore,  a  detail  of  its  provisions 
at  the  present  time.  By  consulting  the  passage,  the  reader 
will  perceive,  that  the  elders,  or  magistrates,  of  the  nearest 
city  were  obliged  to  purge  themselves  and  their  city  of  the 
murder,  and  make  a  solemn  avowal,  that  they  were  ignorant 
of  the  perpetrator  of  it.  lie  will  perceive  also,  that,  in  the 
absence  of  the  press,  nothing  could  be  better  fitted  than  the 
ceremonies  ordained  to  give  publicity  to  the  murder,  and  to 
make  every  one,  who  had  any  knowledge  of  the  matter,  give 
information  concerning  it.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  the 
investigation  instituted  by  the  laws  of  Moses  over  the  body 
of  a  person,  who  had  come  to  his  death  by  means  unknown, 
is  the  origin  of  the  coroner's  inquest  in  modern  times.  No 
ancient  law  made  such  provision  for  the  detection  of  secret 
murders  as  this  of  Moses.  That  of  Plato,  which  is  regarded 
as  the  best,  simply  ordained,  that  if  a  man  was  found  dead, 
and  the  murderer  could  not  be  ascertained,  proclamation 
should  be  made,  that  he  should  not  come  into  any  holy  place, 
nor  into  any  part  of  the  whole  country;  for  if  he  were  dis- 
covered and  apprehended,  he  should  be  put  to  death,  be 
thrown  out  of  the  bounds  of  the  country,  and  have  no  bnrial.f 
These  provisions  of  the  Mosaic  code  to  beget  an  abhorrence  of 
murder,  and  to  guard  the  lives  of  the  citizens,  are  very  re- 
markable. They  evince  a  humanity  in  Moses,  unknown  to 
all  other  ancient  legislators.  They  must  have  tended,  in  a 
high  degree,  to  introduce  a  horror  of  shedding  human  blood, 
and  to  give  intensity  to  the  idea  of  the  sacredness  of  human 
life. 

A  fifteenth  fundamental  principle  of  the  Hebrew  govern- 
mcit  was  education  ;  the  education  of  the  whole  body  of  tho 

*  Deut.  xxii.  8  t  P^^to  ^^  Leg.  1.  9, 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  437 

people ;  especially,  in  the  knowledge  of  the  constitution, 
laws  and  history  of  their  own  country. 

An  ignorant  people  cannot  be  a  free  people.  Intelligence 
is  essential  to  liberty.  No  nation  is  capable  of  self-govern- 
ment, which  is  not  educated  to  understand  and  appreciate  its 
responsibilities.  In  a  republican  government,  the  whole 
power  of  education  is  required.*  Upon  this  principle  Moses 
proceeded  in  the  framing  of  liis  commonwealth. 

The  details  of  the  arrangements  for  the  education  of  the 
Hebrew  people,  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  are  but  scanty. 
We  are,  therefore,  greatly  in  the  dark,  as  to  the  specific 
means  employed.  So  far,  however,  is  clear,  that  the  Mosaic 
law  required,  that  the  greatest  pains  should  be  taken  to 
mould  the  minds,  the  principles,  the  habits,  and  manners  of 
the  young.  Parents  were,  again  and  again,  commanded  to 
teach  their  children,  from  infancy,  all  the  words  of  the  law, 
and  all  the  glorious  facts  of  their  national  history.  They 
were  enjoined  to  talk  of  them,  when  they  sat  in  the  house, 
and  when  they  walked  by  the  way,  when  they  lay  down,  and 
when  they  rose  up.f  The  whole  system  of  legislation  was 
crowded  with  commemorative  rites  and  festivals.  Into  the 
meaning  of  these,  it  was  taken  for  granted,  that  the  young 
would  inquire,  and  it  was  ordained,  that  their  curiosity 
should  be  satisfied  by  the  explanations  of  their  sires.;}:  The 
passover  reminded  them  of  the  wonders  of  the  exode ;  the 
pentecost,  of  the  terrific  splendors,  which  accompanied  the 
giving  of  the  law ;  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  of  the  hardships 
and  miraculous  supplies  of  the  wilderness  ;  and  the  monu- 
mental heap  of  stones  at  Gilgal,  of  the  standing  of  the 
waters  of  Jordan  upon  an  heap,  to  afford  a  passage  to  their 
forefathers.  Even  the  borders  of  their  garments,  their  gates, 
the  frontlets  between  their  eyes,  and  the  posts  and  lintels  ol 

*  Mont  esq.  Sp.  of  Laws.  B.  4,  c.  5.  f  Deut.  vi.  7. 

X  Ex.  xiii.  M,  15. 


438  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

their  doors,  were  to  become  their  teachers  by  the  laws  and 
maxims  which  were  inscribed  upon  them.* 

It  is  hence  plain,  that  Hebrew  parents  were  required,  not 
only  to  teach  their  children  orally,  but  also  to  impart  to  them 
the  arts  of  reading  and  writing.  Since  they  were  commanded 
to  write  them,  they  must  themselves  have  learned  the  art  of 
writing ;  and  since  the}^  were  to  write  them  for  the  use  of 
their  children,  these  njust  have  been  taught  the  art  of  read- 
ing. There  is  reason  to  believe,  that  the  ability  to  read  and 
write  was  an  accomplishment,  more  generally  possessed  by 
the  Hebrews,  than  by  any  other  people  of  antiquity.f  This 
was  certainly  the  case  in  the  time  of  our  Savior.  In  his  ad- 
dresses to  the  common  people,  lie  constantly  appealed  to 
them  in  such  words  as  these  :  "  Have  ye  not  read  what  Moses 
saith  ?  Have  ye  not  read  in  the  scriptures  ?":{:  Such  language 
implies  an  ability,  on  the  part  of  the  people,  to  examine  the 
scriptures  for  themselves.  The  same  thing  is  indicated  b}^  a 
fact,  stated  by  the  evangelical  historian  concerning  the  in- 
scription placed  over  the  head  of  Jesus  at  his  crucifixion : 
"  This  title  then  read  many  of  the  Jews."§  The  writings  of 
Josephus  are  crowded  with  testimonies  as  to  the  great  care  of 
the  Hebrews  in  the  education  of  their  children.  He  says, 
among  other  things,  that  first  of  all  they  are  taught  the  laws, 
as  best  fitted  to  promote  their  future  happiness  ;  that  the 
people  weekly  assemble  to  hear  them  read,  and  to  learn  thera 
exactly  ;  and,  to  crown  all,  he  adds,  somewhat  hyperbolically, 
no  doubt,  that,  "if  any  one  do  but  ask  any  of  our  people 
about  our  laws,  he  will  more  readily  tell  them  all  than  he 
will  tell  his  own  name."  "  We  find  it  to  be  the  uniform  tes- 
timony of  Jewish  writers,  that  the  school  was  to  be  found  in 
every  district  throughout  the  nation,  and  under  the  care  of 

*  Deut.  vi.  8,  9.  f  Mathew's  Bible  &  Civ.  Gov.  Leet.  4. 

+  Mat.  xii.  3.    xis.  4.     xxi.  16.     xxii.  31.    Mark  ii.  25      xii.  10,  26. 
Luke  vi.  3. 
a  John  six.  20 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  439 

teacLers,  who  were  honored  alike  for  their  character  and  sta- 
tion."* Maimonides,  in  his  treatise  on  the  study  of  the  law, 
says  :  "  Every  Israelite,  whether  poor  or  rich,  healthy  or  sick, 
old  or  young,  is  obliged  to  study  the  law  ;  and  even  if  so  poor 
as  to  be  maintained  by  charity,  or  beg  his  bread  from  door 
to  door,  and  have  wife  and  children,  he  must  devote  some 
time  to  the  daily  and  nocturnal  meditation  of  it."  He  asks, 
"  How  long  ought  a  man  to  pursue  the  study  of  the  law  ?" 
and  replies,  "  Till  death." 

An  important  function  of  the  Levites  was  to  superintend 
the  education  of  the  people.  The  proofs  of  this  proposition 
will  be  submitted  in  a  subsequent  chapter.  For  the  present, 
I  merely  advert  to  the  fact,  in  passing,  that,  in  the  reforma- 
tion undertaken  by  Jehoshaphat,  that  excellent  prince,  in  the 
true  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  institution,  commanded  the  priests 
to  go  through  the  land,  and  teach  the  people,  city  by  city, 
the  laws  of  Moses.f  Several  of  the  leading  political  princi- 
ples of  Plato,  as  I  have  shown  in  the  first  book,:}:  were 
borrowed  from  the  Hebrew  lawgiver ;  but  in  no  other  point 
did  his  republic  so  closely  resemble  the  Jewish,  as  in  this, 
that  he  enjoined  it  upon  all  the  citizens  to  learn  accurately 
the  laws. 

In  full  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  laws,  and 
indeed  as  a  natural  result  of  their  operation,  higher  semina- 
ries of  learning,  under  the  name  of  "  schools  of  the 
prophets,"!  were  introduced  and  established  among  the 
Hebrews.  These  institutions  were  presided  over  by  men 
venerable  for  their  age,  character,  ability  and  learning.  The 
notices  of  these  schools  in  the  sacred  books  are  I'ather  scanty, 
and  this  has  given  rise  to  various  opinions  concerning  them. 
From  their  name   some  have  conjectured,  that  they   were 

*  Mathew's  Bib.  &  Civ.  Gov.  Lect.  4. 

t  2  Chron.  xvii.  8,  9.  J  Chap.  7. 

3  1  Sam.  six.  18.     2  Kings  ii.  3,  5. 


4:40  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

places  of  instruction  in  the  art  of  prophecy.  This  absurd 
fancy  was  borrowed  by  Spinoza  from  the  rabbins,  and  by 
him  handed  down  to  his  followers ;  whence  these  sage  logi- 
cians have  inferred,  that  prophecy  was  among  the  practical 
arts  of  the  Hebrews,  as  much  as  carpentry,  or  engraving. 
But  of  this  we  may  be  certain,  that  the  schools  of  the  pro- 
phets were  seminaries  of  prophets,  meaning  by  this  term 
inspired  men,  only  in  so  fer  as  that  those  M^ho  were  best 
instructed  in  the  divine  law,  being  best  fitted  to  convey  God's 
commands  to  the  people,  would,  for  that  reason,  be  most 
likely  to  be  ch()sen  by  him  for  that'  purpose.  In  opposition 
to  the  opinion  of  Spinoza,  Bishop  Warburton  argues,*  with 
no  little  force,  in  support  of  the  opinion,  that  they  were 
seminaries  designed  chiefly  for  the  study  of  the  Jewish  law. 
It  is  probable,  however,  that  they  were  not  devoted  exclusively 
to  that  department  of  study,  but  embraced  within  their  scope 
other  branches  of  knowledge,  which  were  reckoned  among 
the  pursuits  of  learning  in  that  day.  They  corresponded  to 
the  colleges  and  universities  of  modern  times.  They  must 
have  exercised  a  powerful  influence  on  the  mind  and  manners 
of  the  Jewish  people.  It  was  in  the  schools  of  the  prophets, 
that  David  imbibed  that  love  for  the  religious  and  civil  laws 
of  IiS  country,  which  glowed  so  intensely  in  his  bosom, 
which  sparkled  in  his  inimitable  lyrics,  which  became  so  co- 
pious a  spring  of  blessing  to  his  nation,  and  which  won  for 
himself  the  exalted  title  of  the  "  man  after  God's  own  heart  ;"f 
not  morally  and  religiously,  for  that  no  man  has  ever  yet 
been,  but,  as  the  whole  scope  of  the  passage  shows,  the  man 
after  God's  neart  as  a  civil  ruler,  a  man  imbued  with  the 
spirit,  and  devoted  to  the  maintenance,  of  the  national  con- 
stitution. 

There  was  a  peculiarity  in  the  Mosaic  system  of  education, 
which  deserves  our  notice.     It  did  not  overlook  the  fact,  thai 

*  Divine  Legation.  f  1  Samuel  xiii.  14. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  441 

every  man  lias  M'hat  Dr.  Arnold  calls  two  businesses  ;  his  par- 
ticular business,  as  of  a  farmer,  merchant,  lawyer,  or  the  like, 
and  his  general  business,  that  which  he  shares  in  common 
with  all  his  fellow-citizens,  his  business  as  a  man  and  a  citizen. 
Most  modern  systems  of  education  take  but  little  notice  of 
this  distinction.  They  go  upon  the  presumption  that,  if  a 
man  learns  his  particular  business  well,  a  knowledge  of  his 
general  business  will  come  of  itself,  or  be  picked  up  by  the 
way.  JSTot  such  was  the  view  of  Moses.  He  seems  rather  to 
have  thought,  that  every  man  would  be  impelled  to  make 
himself  master  of  his  particular  business,  since  his  bread  de- 
pended on  it ;  but  that  the  knowledge  of  his  general  business, 
the  want  of  which  is  less  keenly  felt,  would  be  a  more  fit 
subject  of  legal  provision.  He  intended,  that  all  his  people 
should  share  in  the  management  of  the  public  aflairs.  He 
meant  each  to  be  a  depositary  of  political  power.  But  he 
looked  upon  power  as  a  solemn  trust,  and  thought  it  incum- 
bent on  a  legislator  to  take  care  that  those  who  hold  it,  should 
know  how  to  discharge  its  duties.  Hence,  in  legislating  on 
the  subject  of  education,  he  appears  chiefly  anxious  to  have 
his  people  instructed  in  the  knowledge  of  their  general  busi- 
ness, that  is,  their  duties  as  men  and  citizens.  He  belonged 
neither  to  that  class  of  political  philosophers,  who  desire  to 
see  the  mass  of  the  people  shut  out  from  all  political  power, 
as  always  and  under  all  circumstances  unfit  to  exercise  it,  nor 
to  that  class,  who  wish  to  see  the  power  of  the  masses  in- 
creased, irrespective  of  their  ability  to  discharge  so  important 
a  trust  beneficially  to  the  community.  In  his  educational 
scheme,  power  and  knowledge  went  hand  in  hand.  The  pos- 
session of  the  latter  was  regarded  as  essential  to  the  right  use 
of  the  former. 

The  old  Eomans  have  received  the  highest  praises,  because, 
conscious  of  the  importance  of  imparting  to  the  rising  gene- 
ration an  early  knowledge  of  the  laws,  they  made  the  twelve 
tables  one  of  the  first  elements  of  public  instruction,  requiring 


44:2  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

the  youtL  to  commit  to  memory  their  entire  contents.  They 
were  sensible,  that  what  is  learned  at  so  early  a  period  is  not 
only  likely  to  be  long  remembered,  but  is  almost  sure  to  com- 
mand respect  and  veneration.  But  Moses  gave  a  broader 
application  to  this  principle  than  it  ever  received  among  the 
Roman  people.  The  education,  enjoined  by  Moses,  was  not, 
as  among  them,  merely  of  the  children  of  the  highborn  and 
the  rich,  but  of  all  ranks  and  conditions.  It  was  a  funda- 
mental maxim  of  his  policy,  that  no  citizen,  not  even  the 
lowest  and  the  poorest,  should  grow  up  in  ignorance.  How 
much  does  he  deserve  the  gratitude  of  mankind  for  so  noble 
a  lesson  !  In  proportion  as  this  idea  enters  into  the  constitu- 
tion of  a  state,  tyranny  will  hide  its  head,  practical  equality 
will  be  established,  party  strife  will  abate  its  ferocity,  error, 
rashness,  and  folly  will  disappear,  and  an  enlightened,  digni- 
fied, and  venerable  public  opinion  will  bear  sway. 

Upon  the  whole,  it  may  be  affirmed,  that  in  no  part  of  the 
Hebrew  constitution  does  the  wisdom  of  the  lawgiver  shine 
w^ith  a  more  genial  lustre,  than  in  what  relates  to  the  educa- 
tion of  the  young.  The  provisions  of  the  constitution  on  this 
point  cannot  be  regarded  otherwise  than  as  the  dictate  of  a 
wise,  liberal,  and  comprehensive  statesmanship ;  for,  surely, 
it  is  in  the  highest  degree  desirable,  that  every  citizen  should 
be  acquainted  wath  the  laws  and  constitution  of  his  country. 
Patriotism  itself  is  but  a  blind  impulse,  if  it  is  not  founded 
on  a  knowledge  of  the  blessings  we  are  called  upon  to  secure, 
and  the  privileges  which  we  propose  to  defend.  It  is  politi- 
cal ignorance  alone,  that  can  reconcile  men  to  the  tame  sur- 
render of  their  rights ;  it  is  political  knowledge  alone,  that 
can  rear  an  effectual  barrier  against  the  encroachments  of  ar- 
bitrary power  and  lawless  violence.* 

In  full  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  legislation, 
is  the  beautiful  prayer  of  David,  "  that  our  sons  may  be  as 

*  See  this  topic  handled  in  a  masterly  manner  by  Robert  Hall  in  one  of 
his  Reviews;  I  cannot  now  recal  which. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBRE-Wb.  443 

plants  grown  up  in  their  youth  ;  that  our  daughters  may  be 
as  corner-stones,  polished  after  the  similitude  of  a  palace." 
Such  was  the  political  philosophy  of  the  founder  of  the  He- 
brew state,  and  such  was  the  practice  of  those  statesmen  in 
after  times,  who  adhered  most  closely  to  the  spirit  of  his 
institutions.  From  a  survey  of  the  whole  matter,  the  conclu- 
sion seems  warranted,  that  the  education  of  the  Hebrew 
people,  conducted  mainly,  though  not  wholly,  under  the 
domestic  roof,  was,  nevertheless,  a  national  education,  and 
worthy  of  the  imitation  of  other  nations.  Especially  does  it 
deserve  to  be  studied  and  copied,  so  far  as  that  branch  of 
education  is  concerned,  which  consists  in  development,  as 
distinguished  from  instruction.  The  Hebrew  law  required 
an  early,  constant,  vigorous,  and  efficient  training  of  the  dis- 
position, judgment,  manners,  and  habits  both  of  thought 
and  feeling.  The  sentiments,  held  to  be  appropriate  to  man 
in  society,  Avere  imbibed  with  the  milk  of  infancy.  The 
manners,  considered  becoming  in  adults,  were  sedulously 
imparted  in  childhood.  The  habits,  regarded  as  conducive 
to  individual  advancement,  social  happiness,  and  national 
repose  and  prosperity,  were  cultivated  with  the  utmost  dili- 
gence. The  greatest  pains  were  taken  to  acquaint  the  He- 
brew youth  with  their  duties,  as  well  as  their  rights,  both 
personal  and  political.  In  a  word,  the  main  channel  of 
tbought  and  feeling  for  each  generation  was  marked  out  by 
the  generation  which  preceded  it,  and  the  stream  for  the  most 
part  flowed  with  a  steady  current. 

Such  a  system  of  mental  and  moral  culture  as  that  for 
which  the  Hebrew  constitution  made  provision,  could  not  be 
without  rich  fruits.  The  result  was,  that  the  nation  reached 
a  high  point  of  literary  attainment  and  distinction.  Under 
their  most  splendid  and  munificent  monarch,  the  Hebrews 
enjoyed  what  may  be  called  the  golden  age  of  their  litera- 
ture. "  Solomon  and  his  court  were,  in  their  day,  the  great 
centre  of  attraction  for  those  of  all  nations,  who  loved  and 


444  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

honored  knowledge.  Ills  wisdom  excelled  all  the  wisdom  ot 
the  east  country,  and  all  the  wisdom  of  Egypt.  He  spake  of 
trees,  from  the  cedar  in  Lebanon  even  mito  the  hyssop  that 
Bpringeth  out  of  the  wall;  he  spake  also  of  beasts,  and  of 
fowl,  and  of  creeping  things,  and  of  fishes.  His  songs  were  a 
thousand  and  five,  and  his  proverbs  three  thousand.  And 
while  he  excelled  in  the  wide  fields  of  natural  science,  poetry, 
and  ethics,  the  temple,  which  still  bears  his  name,  stood 
before  the  world  a  monument  of  skill  and  taste,  which  ren- 
dered it  in  after  ages  the  original  model  of  grace,  majesty, 
and  grandeur  in  architecture.  Such  gifted  luminaries  in  the 
intellectual  world  do  not  shine  alone.  They  usually  belong 
to  a  constellation,  and  the  king  who  sets  such  an  example,  is 
not  likely  to  be  without  followers.  There  was,  indeed,  one 
cardinal  feature  in  the  Hebrew  polity,  which  was  pre-emi- 
nently favorable,  at  all  times,  to  the  cultivation  of  knowledge. 
By  divine  appointment  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  was  set  apart 
for  the  service  of  religion  and  letters  ;  and  while  many  were 
employed  before  the  altar  and  in  the  temple,  others  were 
devoted  to  study ;  many  of  whom,  especially  in  the  reign  of 
Solomon,  reached  a  high  name  both  for  their  attainments  in 
the  science  of  their  age,  and  the  fidelity  with  w^hich  they 
made  their  learning  available  for  the  benefit  of  the  people. 
Thus  was  produced  that  happy  conjunction  in  the  history  of 
knowledge,  when  learning  bestowed  honor  on  the  learned, 
and  the  learned  brought  honor  on  learning ;  when  the  high- 
est attainments  were  deemed  of  value,  not  according  as  they 
gave  distinction  to  him  who  had  reached  them,  but  according 
as  they  tended  to  improve  and  to  bless  the  whole  family  of 
man.  Among  the  Hebrews  there  was  no  monopoly  of  know- 
ledge by  a  favored  few.  Litelligence  was  general  in  the 
degree  and  of  the  kind  adapted  to  the  various  pursuits  and 
duties  of  those  among  whom  it  was  spread.  The  tongue  and 
the  pen  of  even  learned  royalty  were  industriously  employed 
in  giving  to  knowledge  that  condensed  and  practical  form, 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  445 

which  migut  bring  it  within  the  reach  of  all,  and  make  it 
available  for  the  advantage  of  all;  of  the  shepherd  and  vine- 
dresser, as  well  as  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets."* 

Another  of  those  great  ideas,  on  which  Moses  founded  the 
Hebrew  government,  was  union. 

I  refer  here,  not  so  much  to  those  civil  ties  which  bound 
the  people  together  in  one  body  politic,  as  to  that  oneness  of 
hearts,  opinions,  and  manners,  which  forms  the  strongest 
bond  of  society,  and  is  the  firmest  rampart  of  its  defence. 
This  sympathy  of  souls,  and  the  interchange  of  social  cha- 
rities springing  from  it,  though  not  the  primary  object,  was 
yet  an  excellent  incidental  advantage,  of  the  equal  distribu- 
tion of  property,  heretofore  noticed.  The  nation  was  thus 
composed  of  a  brotherhood  of  hardy  yeomen,  no  one  ot 
whom  could  become  either  very  rich  or  very  poor,  or  could 
have  anything  in  his  outward  circumstances  greatly  to  excite 
the  envy  or  the  contempt  of  the  others.  How  well  suited 
such  a  condition  of  things  was  to  make  solid  friendships,  let 
the  opinions  of  all  antiquity,  from  Aristotle  to  Cicero,  as 
well  as  those  of  every  succeeding  age,  attest. 

The  system  of  education,  in  vogue  among  the  Hebrew  peo- 
ple, tended  powerfully  to  the  same  result.  To  this  cause 
Josephus,  with  much  plausibility,  traces  that  unanimit}^  ot 
sentiment  concerning  God  and  morals,  which,  he  says,  so 
remarkably  distinguished  his  nation,  that  even  the  women 
and  servants  spake  the  same  things. 

To  the  same  effect  was  the  incessant  inculcation  of 
kindness  and  charity,  not  only  towards  one  another,  but  also 
to  strangers,  enforced  by  the  oft  repeated  admonition,  "  Ye 
know  the  heart  of  a  stranger,  for  ye  M'ere  strangers  in  the 
land  of  Egypt."f  "  If,"  says  the  venerable  patriarch,  whose 
history,  there  is  reason  to  believe,  Moses  introduced  to  the 
knowledge  of  his  countrymen,  if  he  was  not  himself  the 
author  of  it,  "  if  I  have  withheld  the  poor  from  their  desire, 

*  Mathew"s  Bible  and  Civil  Government,  Lect.  4.  j-  Ex.  sxiii.  9. 


446  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

or  hfive  caused  the  eyes  of  the  widow  to  fail ;  if  I  havo 
eaten  my  morsel  alone,  and  the  fatherless  have  not  eaten 
thereof;  if  I  have  seen  any  perish  for  want  of  clothing,  or 
any  poor  without  covering  ;  if  I  did  despise  the  cause  of  my 
man-servant  or  my  maid-servant,  when  they  contended  with 
me ;  what  then  shall  I  do  when  God  riseth  up  ;  and  when  he 
visiteth,  what  shall  I  answer  him  ?  Did  not  he  that  made 
me  in  the  womb,  make  him  ?  and  did  not  one  fashion  us  ?''f 
How  beautifully  does  this  acknowledgment  of  brotherhood 
with  paupers  and  bondmen,  from  one  of  the  most  illustrious 
princes  of  his  age,  and  this  warm  gush  of  charity  towards 
every  creature,  wearing  the  human  form,  and  crushed 
beneath  the  burden  of  human  sorrows,  contrast  with  that 
utter  want  of  sympathy  for  man  as  man,  which  characterized 
all  the  ancient  systems  both  of  government  and  philosophy  ! 
The  "  odi  profanum  vulgus  et  arceo"  of  Horace, — that  bitter 
scorn  and  supercilious  contempt  of  the  profane  herd, — was 
but  the  echo  of  a  mode  of  thinking  and  feeling,  well  nigh 
universal  among  the  learned  and  the  great  of  his  day. 
Much  of  Greek,  and  nearl}^  all  of  Eoman  letters,  breathes  a 
proud  oblivion  and  contem])t  of  the  common  people.  The 
scornful  sentiment  of  the  Roman  poet,  cited  above,  "  hate 
for  the  profane  rabble,"  is  but  too  faithfully  reflected  from 
the  pages  of  ancient  scholarship. 

But,  after  all,  the  great  and  sufficient  means  of  cementing 
the  bond  of  sympathy  and  friendship  among  the  Hebrews, 
were  the  three  annual  festivals,  at  which  the  males  must,  and 
the  females  might,  assemble  at  Jerusalem.  The  divine  wis- 
dom has  a  reach,  a  compass,  a  manifold  fulness  in  its  plans, 
which  the  shortsighted  policy  of  man  would  in  vain  labor  to 
imitate.  Thus  it  was  in  the  institution  of  these  solemnities, 
"While  the  primary  end  of  their  appointment  was  of  a  reli- 
gious nature,  another  and  a  most  important  one  was  the  pro- 
motion   of  that  fraternal  esteem  and  charity,   so   congenial 

■*  Job.  xxxi.  13  seqq. 


LAWS    OF   THE   AJSTCIENT   HEBREWS.  447 

both  to  the  character  of  Moses  and  the  temper  of  his  laws. 
This  was  the  opinion  of  Maimonides.  "  The  festival  days," 
sajs  he,*  "  were  appointed  generally  for  purposes  of  joy,  and 
because  such  j)ublic  assemblies  promote  that  union  and 
affection,  which  are  necessarily  required  under  all  civil  and 
political  governments." 

From  a  similar  motive  sprang  the  national  games  of  Greece, 
so  celebrated  in  ancient  story ;  and  the  institution  of  those 
assemblies  has  ever  been  looked  upon  as  a  master  stroke  of 
policy  and  prudence.  The  Greek  nation,  as  observed  by 
Goguet,f  composed  of  a  multitude  of  small  states,  jealous 
and  envious  of  each  other,  had  need  of  some  common  centre, 
wliere  all  might  occasionally  find  themselves  united  and  com- 
mingled. This  is  precisely  what  happened  in  these  games, 
wliither  repaired  an  incredible  number  of  spectators  from  all 
parts  of  Greece.  By  this  concourse  was  formed  a  bond  of 
correspondence,  a  sort  of  confraternity,  among  all  the  citizens 
of  the  different  Grecian  cities.  The  Greeks,  at  these  times, 
appeared  to  be,  in  a  manner,  inhabitants  of  the  same  place ; 
they  offered  in  common  the  same  sacrifices  to  the  same  dei- 
ties, and  participated  in  the  same  pleasures.  By  this  means 
grudges  were  calmed ;  animosities  stifled  ;  and  quarrels 
terminated.  They  had  also  an  opportunity,  in  these  grand 
assemblages,  of  effacing  those  prejudices,  which  are  com- 
monly kept  up  only  by  not  knowing  the  persons,  against 
whom  they  are  entertained. 

Whatever  advantages,  of  this  nature,  Greece  derived  from 
the  institution  of  her  games,  the  same  flowed,  in  a  still  higher 
degree,  to  the  Hebrews  from  their  national  festivals.  By 
being  thus  brought  frequently  into  contact,  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing, they  were  reminded  of  their  common  origin  and  their 
common   objects.     The  fact  was    brought   home  vividly  to 

*  More  Nevochim,  C.  18. 

f  Origin  of  Laws.  I  cannot  cite  the  chapter,  because  I  am  not  now 
where  T  can  hsive  access  to  the  work. 


448  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

their  tlionglits,  tliat  they  were  sons  of  the  same  father,  wor- 
shipi^ers  of  the  same  God,  and  heirs  of  the  same  promises. 
Persons  of  distant  towns  and  diiferent  tribes  met  together 
on  terms  of  brotherhood  and  fellowship ;  and  old  relations 
were  renewed,  and  new  ones  formed.  Thus  the  twelve  petty 
Btates  would  become  more  and  more  closely  connected,  and 
would  be,  not  merely  nominally,  but  really,  and  from  social 
love,  united  into  one  great  people. 

How  strong  the  cementing  power  of  these  solemn  convo- 
cations was  actually  found  to  be,  plainly  appears,  in  the 
motive,  which  prompted  the  politic  and  crafty  Jeroboam,  on 
the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes  from  the  successor  of  Solomon,  to 
set  up  the  golden  calves  at  Dan  and  Bethel  :  "  Jeroboam  said 
in  his  heart,  Now  shall  the  kingdom  return  to  the  house  of 
David.  If  this  people  go  up  to  do  sacrifice  in  the  house  of 
the  Lord  at  Jerusalem,  then  shall  the  heart  of  this  people 
turn  again  to  their  Lord,  even  unto  Eehoboam,  kir|g  of  Ju- 
dah,  and  they  shall  kill  me,  and  go  again  unto  Eehoboam, 
king  of  Judah."* 

Here  we  have  a  clear  proof,  that  the  separation  of  the  ten 
tribes  from  the  tribe  of  Judah,  under  Eehoboam  and  Jerobo- 
am, could  not  have  been  permanent,  had  not  the  latter 
abrogated  one  part  of  the  law  of  Moses  relative  to  the  festi- 
vals. This  shows,  in  a  very  striking  manner,  how  naturally 
one  common  place  for  national  festivals  has  the  effect  of 
preventing,  or  healing,  any  such  political  breaches ;  and  that 
the  legislator,  who  should  be  desirous  of  inseparably  uniting 
twelve  small  states  into  one  great  nation,  could  not  adopt  a 
more  effectual  plan  for  that  purpose,  than  that  which  Moses 
pursued  in  the  case  of  the  tribes  of  Israel. f 

To  bring  the  illusti'ation  of  this  point  somewhat  more 
closely  to  ourselves,  what  is  it,  let  me  ask,  that  constitutes  the 
strongest  bond  of  union  between  the  people  and  states  of  our 
own  confederacy  ?     Is  it  a  common  ancestry  ?     Is  it  the  pro- 

*  1  Kings  ii.  2G,  27.  f  Mich.  Com.  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  198. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  449 

perty  we  all  claim  in  the  public  annals  of  the  country  ?  Is  it 
the  cementing  power  of  our  revolutionary  struggle  ?  Is  it 
even  our  national  constitution,  that  precious  legacy,  be- 
queathed to  us  by  the  wisdom  of  our  patriot  sires  ?  These 
things,  doubtless,  have  their  influence,  nor  is  it  a  feeble  one ; 
but  not  one,  nor  all  of  them  combined,  are  adequate  to  the 
result.  What,  then,  is  that  mysterious,  cohesive  power,  which 
holds  us  tugetlier,  and  which  alone  can  hold  us  together,  as 
one  people  ?  It  is  our  migratory  habits.  It  is  our  universal 
fondness  for  travel.  It  is  the  fact,  that  each  of  us  has  a 
parent,  a  child,  a  brother,  a  sister,  in  the  distant  north,  the 
extreme  south,  the  far-off  west.  It  is  the  certainty  that  none 
of  us  can  find  ourselves  in  a  railway  car,  or  steamboat,  on 
any  of  the  iron  roads  or  majestic  rivers  of  this  broad  empire, 
without  meeting,  or  making,  an  acquaintance  or  a  friend.  It 
is  the  cheap  postage  system,  which  enables  heart  to  speak  to 
heart,  between  the  most  distant  points,  without  taxing  even 
the  poor  with  an  expenditure  out  of  proportion  to  their  means. 
It  is  the  magnetic  telegraph,  which  transmits  the  messages  of 
business  and  of  affection,  with  lightning  rapidity,  from  one 
extremity  of  the  country  to  the  other.  It  is  our  numerous 
watering  places,  where  the  inhabitants  of  the  north,  the  south, 
the  east,  and  the  west,  find  themselves  once  a  year,  like  the 
ancient  Greeks  at  their  games,  and  like  the  ancient  Hebrews 
at  their  festivals,  united  and  commingled, — sitting  at  the  same 
table,  bathing  in  the  same  waters,  drinking  at  the  same 
springs,  inhaling  health  from  the  same  breezes,  engaging  in 
the  same  sports,  mingling  in  the  same  social  circles,  and 
joining  in  the  song  and  the  joke  and  the  laugh  together.  It 
is  these  influences,  and  such  as  these,  that  bind  us  more 
firmly  as  a  people  into  one  common  brotherhood,  than  would 
a  cordon  of  paper  constituiions  long  enough  to  encircle  the 
globe. 

A  well  adjusted  system  of  checks  and  balances  between 
the  several  powers  of  government  was  another  fundamental 


450  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

principle  of  the  civil  polity  of  Moses.  To  form  a  free  goveru- 
ment,  it  is  necessary  to  combine  the  several  powers  of  it,  to 
adjust  them  to  each  other,  to  regulate,  temper,  and  set  them 
in  motion,  to  give,  as  Montesquieu  expresses  it,  ballast  to  one, 
in  order  to  enable  it  to  resist  another.  This  is  a  masterpiece 
of  legislation,  never  produced  by  hazard,  and  seldom  attained 
by  prudence.  It  is  exactly  here,  that  the  point  of  greatest 
difficulty  with  a  legislator  lies.  This  will  afford  scope  for  the 
exercise  of  all  his  genius,  however  comprehensive,  sagacious, 
and  commanding  it  may  be.  It  is  here  that  we  see  the 
proudest  triumph  of  the  British  and  American  constitutions. 
Here  also,  as  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  chief  defect  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  new  French  republic.  There  is  no  division 
of  powers  in  it.  There  is  no  balance,  no  check.  All  the 
authority  of  the  state  is  collected  into  one  centre,  the  single 
assembly  ;  and  the  constant  tendency  will  be  to  a  similar  cen- 
tralization of  power  in  that  body.  It  will  be  well  if  the 
system  does  not  degenerate  into  the  government  of  an  irre- 
sponsible junto  of  master  spirits,  or  even  into  the  despotism 
of  one  man,  bold  enough,  and  popular  enough,  to  seize  the 
reins  of  supreme  power.* 

Unfortunately,  history  is  but  too  full  of  proofs,  that  rest- 
less and  ambitious  spirits,  who  do  not  hesitate  to  seek  per- 
sonal aggrandizement,  in  the  confusion,  if  not  the  ruin  of 
their  country,  are  the  growth  of  all  ages  and  nations.  It  is 
well  observed  by  Lowman,f  that  there  are  two  principal 
methods  of  preventing  the  evils  of  ambition,  viz.  either  to 
take  away  the  usual  occasions  of  ambitious  views,  or  else  to 
make  the  execution  of  them  difficult  and  improbable. 

The  Hebrew  constitution,  it  may  be  boldly  affirmed,  made 

*Thi8  was  written  in  1849.  I  do  not  expunge  it,  because  nothing  has 
occurred  since  to  change  my  opinion  of  the  constitution,  as  it  stood  at  that 
time.  If  the  usurpation  of  Louis  Napoleon  does  not  confirm  it,  as  least  it 
is  not  against  it. 

•}•  Civil  Gov.  of  the  Hebrews,  c.  6. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  451 

"both  these  provisions,  in  a  manner  equal,  if  not  superior,  to 
any  known  constitution  of  government  in  the  world.  Its 
verj'-  foundation,  as  we  have  seen,  was  laid  in  a  rigid  equality 
of  all  the  citizens,  effected  by  a  perfectly  equal  division  of 
the  national  domain  ;  which  division,  moreover,  a  funda- 
mental ordinance  of  the  constitution  made  perpetual.  Such, 
then,  was  the  peculiar  character  of  the  agrarian  of  the  He- 
brews, that,  on  the  one  hand,  few  could  acquire  the  means  of 
bribery  to  any  considerable  extent ;  and,  on  the  other,  there 
could  hardly,  at  any  one  time,  be  many  indigent  persons  to 
be  corrupted.  The  power  in  the  hands  of  so  large  a  number 
of  freeholders  was  so  much  greater  than  the  power  in  the 
hands  of  one,  or  of  a  few  men,  that  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive how,  without  first  destroying  some  of  the  fundamental 
provisions  of  the  constitution,  ambition  and  tyranny  could 
accomplish  their  nefarious  designs. 

But,  besides  cutting  off  the  usual  occasions  and  incitemente 
to  ambition,  the  constitution  made  all  factious  attempts  so  little 
likely  to  succeed,  as  to  be  next  to  impracticable.  The  powers 
of  each  department  of  the  government,  as  will  more  clearly 
appear  from  our  analysis  of  the  constitution  in  the  following 
chapters,  were  so  balanced  by  the  powers  of  the  other  de- 
partments, that,  without  the  concurrence  of  all,  it  was  well 
nigh  impossible  for  any  one  part  to  draw  to  itself  any  con- 
siderable preponderance  of  authority  over  the  others.  The 
authority  of  the  judge  was  checked  by  that  of  the  senate  of 
princes  ;  the  power  of  the  senatorial  council  was  balanced  by 
that  of  the  judge  and  the  popular  assembly  ;  while  the  whole 
was  tempered  and  restrained  by  the  oracle  of  their  heavenly 
king.  Whoever  will  attentively  consider  the  true  plan  and 
arrangement  of  the  government,  will  acknowledge,  that  it 
must  have  been  exceedingly  hard,  if  not  absolutely  imprac- 
ticable, for  any  person,  tribe,  magistrate,  or  public  council,  to 
invade  the  property  of  the  citizens,  or  overturn  the  liberties 
of  the  state- 


45^ 


COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 


But  it  has  been  repeatedly  charged  against  the  institutes  of 
Moses,  that  they  were  purposely  contrived  to  draw  all  the 
wealth  and  power  of  the  nation  into  the  hands  of  the 
Levites ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  chief  danger  to  the  popular 
liberty  arose  out  of  the  constitution  of  that  tribe.  Never  was 
so  malignant  an  accusation  raised  upon  so  slender  a  founda- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  the  organization  and  disposition  of 
the  tribe  of  Levi  was  contrived  with  consummate  wisdom, 
both  to  impart  a  vital  action  to  the  whole  system,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  to  act  as  a  balance  wheel  to  regulate  its 
motions. 

Let  us  sift  a  little  the  charge  against  this  part  of  the  con- 
stitution, and  see  to  what  it  amounts. 

There  are  two  principal  sources  of  political,  as  of  personal, 
power, — knowledge  and  property.  It  is  undeniable,  thpt  the 
Levites  were  the  scholars  of  the  nation  ;  and  it  is  readily 
granted,  that,  if  to  this  advantage  they  had  united  an  in- 
dependent government,  such  as  the  other  tribes  enjoyed,  and 
an  equal  possession  of  territory,  there  would  have  been  a 
continual  and  dangerous  tendency  to  the  accumulation  of 
property  and  power  in  their  hands.  But  Moses  committed 
no  such  capital  mistake,  as  such  an  organization  would  argue. 
His  constitution,  at  one  blow,  deprived  the  Levites  of  a 
united  and  independent  government,  and  rendered  them 
incapable  of  holding  landed  property.  According  to  an 
ancient  prophecy  of  their  great  progenitor,  they  were  "di- 
vided in  Jacob  and  scattered  in  Israel."  They  were  distributed 
into  cities,  allotted  to  them  throughout  the  territories  of  all 
the  other  twelve  tribes. 

By  this  arrangement  both  the  estates  and  the  persons  of 
the  Levites  were  given  into  the  hands  of  the  remaining 
tribes,  as  so  many  hostages  for  their  good  behavior.  They 
were  so  separated  from  each  otber,  that  it  was  impossible  for 
them  to  form  any  dangerous  combinations  among  themselves, 
or  to  afford  mutual  assistance  in  the  execution  of  any  ambi- 


LAWS   OF  THE  ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  453 

tious  projects.  Upon  suspicion  of  any  factious  attempts  on 
their  part,  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  other  tribes,  not  only 
to  put  a  stop  to  their  whole  livelihood,  but  also  to  seize  upon 
all  their  persons  at  once. 

Hence  it  may  be  perceived,  tliat,  whatever  influence  the 
constitution  conferred  upon  the  Levites  to  do  good,  the  same 
constitution  took  away  from  them  all  power  to  endanger  the 
peace,  or  the  liberties  of  their  country.  Never,  certainly,  did 
any  other  constitution  watch,  with  such  eagle-eyed  jealousy, 
to  preserve  the  people  from  the  dangers  of  ill-balanced 
power,  or  guard  the  public  liberty  with  so  many  and  so  ad- 
mirably contrived  defences  against  the  projects  of  factious 
and  restless  ambition.  Most  justly  does  Lowman  take  notice 
how  much  these  provisions  of  the  Hebrew  government  to 
prevent  the  occasions  of  faction  excel  all  the  constitutions  of 
the  famed  Spartan  lawgiver  for  the  same  purpose,  so  much 
celebrated  by  Grecian  authors.  Nor  would  they,  he  adds, 
have  missed  their  praise,  had  they  been  published  by  a 
Lycurgus,  a  Solon,  a  Numa ;  or,  indeed,  by  any  body,  but 
Moses.  The  more  we  examine  into  the  Mosaic  plan  of  go- 
vernment, and  the  more  reflection  we  bestow  upon  it,  the 
more  shall  we  be  convinced  of  the  admirable  equilibrium  of 
its  powers,  and  the  more  shall  we  feel  its  fitness  for  the 
efficient  preservation  of  the  public  liberty. 

The  necessity  of  an  enlightened,  virtuous,  salutary  public 
opinion,  is  the  last  of  those  great  ideas,  which  I  shall  notice 
as  lying  at  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew  constitution. 

Public  opinion  is  an  instrument  of  mighty  power;  and  it 
is  none  the  less  powerful,  because  its  operation  is  silent  and 
unperceived.  It  is  a  great  and  pervading  principle  of  action 
among  men.  No  human  being  is  beyond  the  reach  of  its  in- 
fluence. The  despot  moderates  his  tyranny  in  obedience  to 
its  mandates.  The  legislator  respects  its  authority  in  making 
laws.  The  politician  seeks  to  turn  it  to  account  in  promoting 
his  schemes  of  personal  advancement.     A  disregard  of  it  cost 


454  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

Charles  I,  of  England,  bis  head,  and  drove  Charles  X,  of 
France,  from  his  throne.  Ignorance  or  contempt  of  it  has 
prostrated  raonarchs,  overthrown  governments,  and  drenched 
the  plains  of  Europe  and  America  in  fraternal  blood.  Yet 
how  benign  it  may  be  made  in  its  operation  and  effects ! — not 
like  those  destructive  engines,  with  which  the  walls  of  hostile 
cities  are  battered  down,  but  like  those  happier  contrivances, 
by  which  the  waters  of  rivers  are  diverted  from  their  channels, 
and  conveyed  to  the  orchards,  gardens,  and  cornfields  of  the 
neighboring  valleys,  which  thus  become  indebted  to  them  for 
their  fertility  and  their  beauty,  for  the  riches,  which  reward 
the  husbandman's  toils,  and  the  bloom  and  fragrance  which 
regale  his  senses.  Public  opinion  is  "  the  empire  of  mind  in- 
stead of  brute  force,  and  will  always  prevail,  when  intelligence 
is  generally  diffused,  and  thought  is  free  and  untrammelled. 
Mere  statute  law  is  comparatively  powerless,  if  public  opinion 
is  against  it.  Civil  liberty,  too,  even  if  acquired  to-day,  may 
be  lost  to-morrow,  unless  there  is  accompanying  it  a  sound 
public  opinion,  growing  out  of  general  intelligence,  and  an 
elevated  tone  of  moral  sentiment  among  the  mass  of  the 
people.  Hence  the  great  importance  of  those  regulations  in 
a  community,  which  tend  to  improve  the  standard  of  public 
sentiment."*  'No  legislator  ever  understood  this  principle 
better  than  Moses,  and  none  ever  applied  it  with  a  wiser  fore- 
cast. Undoubtedly  the  most  efficient  means  employed  by  him 
to  form  a  just,  pure,  wise,  and  vigorous  public  opinion,  was  the 
system  of  education,  which  he  established  among  the  people, 
and  which  has  been  already  described.  But  Moses  intro- 
duced into  his  code  many  other  regulations,  which  had  a  strong 
tendency  to  that  end,  even  if  such  was  not  their  primary  in- 
tention. Let  the  reader  consult  Ex.  22:  21-24,  Deut.  24: 
6,  10,  19-22,  Ex.  23  :  4,  Deut.  22  :  6,  24:  14,  Levit.  19 :  32, 
and  Ex.  23  :  1.     Dr.  Springf  takes  notice  of  the  precepts 

*  Mat.  Bib.  &  Civ.  Gov,  Lect.  4. 

t  Obligations  of  the  World  to  the  Bible,  Lect.  3.  ■ 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  455 

here  referred  to,  and  denominates  tliein  great  moral  axioms, 
designed  to  form  the  moral  sensibilities  of  the  Hebrews  by  a 
standard  refined  and  honoi'able,  to  guard  them  against  unna- 
tural obduracy,  and  to  be  a  sort  of  standing  appeal  to  the 
tenderness  and  honor  of  men  in  all  their  mutual  intercourse. 
.Dr.  Matthews*  speaks  of  them  as  "  statutes  by  which  the 
national  mind  in  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  was  trained  to  a 
high  standard  of  public  sentiment,  imparting  to  all  classes  a 
sensibility  to  the  proprieties  of  life,  and  a  spontaneous  regard 
to  its  relative  duties,  'which,  in  some  degree,  render  a  people 
a  law  unto  themselves.  To  produce  and  perpetuate  such  a 
governing  power,  tlie  power  of  opinion,  is  the  very  essence  of 
wise  legislation  ;  and,  in  proportion  to  its  strength  and  preva- 
lence among  a  people,  will  the  foundations  of  civil  freedom 
be  strong  and  enduring."  This  was  the  steady  aim  and  suc- 
cessful endeavor  of  the  Jewish  lawgiver. 

Such,  then,  as  I  conceive,  were  the  great  ideas,  the  funda- 
mental principles,  which  lay  at  the  basis  of  the  Hebrew  state. 
The  unity  of  God,  the  unity  of  the  nation,  civil  liberty,  poli- 
tical equality,  an  elective  magistracy,  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people,  the  responsibility  of  public  officers  to  their  constitu- 
ents, a  prompt,  cheap,  and  impartial  administration  of  justice, 
peace  and  friendship  with  other  nations,  agriculture,  universal 
industry,  the  inviolability  of  private  property,  the  sacredness 
of  the  family  relation,  the  sanctity  of  human  life,  universal 
education,  social  union,  a  well  adjusted  balance  of  powers, 
and  an  enlightened,  dignified,  venerable  public  opinion,  were 
the  vital  elements  of  the  constitution  of  Moses.  What  better 
basis  of  civil  polity,  what  nobler  maxims  of  political  wisdom, 
does  the  nineteenth  century  oflfer  to  our  contemplation,  despite 
its  boast  of  social  progress  and  reform  ?  The  institutions, 
founded  on  these  maxims,  tower  up,  amid  the  barbaric  dark- 
ness and  despotisms  of  antiquity,  the  great  beacon  light  of 
the  world,  diffusing  the  radiance  of  a  political  philosophy, 

*  Bib.  &  Civ.  Gov.  Lect.  2. 


45&  COMMENTAPJIiS    ON    THE 

full  of  truth  and  wisdom,  over  all  the  ages,  which  have 
succeeded  that,  in  which  they  were  first  promulgated  to 
mankind. 


CHAPTER  U. 


The  Hebrew  Theocracy. 


In  order  to  lay  down  a  true  plan  of  the  Hebrew  govern- 
ment, it  will  be  necessary  to  inquire  whether,  besides  the 
common  ends  of  government, — the  protection  of  the  life, 
liberty,  property,  and  happiness  of  the  governed, — the  law- 
giver had  any  special  views  in  its  institution.  If  so,  the 
government  would  naturally  be  adjusted  to  those  ends  ;  and 
it  can  hardly  be  understood,  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
particular  views,  which  it  was  intended  to  answer.  Now  it 
is  certain,  that  such  special  designs  entered  into  the  mind  of 
the  Jewish  lawgiver,  and  modified  his  system  of  government. 

By  the  free  choice  of  the  people,*  Jehovah  was  made  the 
civil  head  of  the  Hebrew  state.  Thus  the  law-making  power 
and  the  sovereignty  of  the  state  were,  by  the  popular  suf- 
frage, vested  in  him.  It  is  on  this  account,  that  Josephus,f 
and  others  after  him,  have  called  the  Hebrew  government  a 
theocracy.  Theocracy  signifies  a  divine  government.  The 
term  is  justly  applied  to  the  Mosaic  constitution.  Yet  there 
is  danger  of  being  misled  by  it,  and  thence  of  falling  into 
error  respecting  the  true  nature  and  powers  of  the  Hebrew 
government.  It  may  be  too  broadly  applied.  There  was  a 
strong  infusion  of  the  theocratic  element  in  the  Hebrew  con- 
stitution. Still  it  was  but  an  element  in  the  government; 
and  not  the  whole  of  the  government.     In  other  words,  the 

*  See  the  Int.  Essay.  f  Against  Apion,  1.  1. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  457 

Hebrew  government  was  not  a  pure  theocracy.  It  was  a 
theocracy,  but  a  theocracy  in  a  restricted  sense.  Every 
student  of  the  Hebrew  history  knows,  that  the  Hebrew 
people,  like  other  nations,  had  their  civil  rulers,  men  who 
exercised  authority  over  other  men,  and  were  acknowledged 
and  obeyed  as  lawful  magistrates.* 

What,  then,  was  the  true  province  of  the  theocracy  ?  What 
were  its  leading  objects  ?  These  objects,  as  I  conceive,  with- 
out excluding  others,  were  chiefly  two.  One  was  to  teach 
mankind  the  true  science  of  civil  government.  It  corresponds 
with  the  goodness  of  God  in  other  respects,  that  he  should 
make  a  special  revelation  on  this  subject.  I  hold  it  to  have 
been  an  important  part  of  the  legislation  of  the  Most  High, 
as  the  lawgiver  of  Israel,  to  show  how  civil  authority  among 
men  should  be  created,  and  how  it  should  be  administered, 
so  as  best  to  promote  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  a  nation  ; 
and  also  how  the  relations  between  rulers  and  ruled  should 
be  adjusted  and  regulated.  But  another  object  of  the  theo- 
cratic feature  of  the  Hebrew  government,  and  the  leading 
one  undoubtedly,  was  the  overthrow  and  extirpation  of 
idolatry.  The  design  was,  first,  to  effect  a  separation  between 
the  Israelites  and  their  idolatrous  neighbors,  and,  secondly, 
to  make  idolatry  a  ciime  against  the  state,  that  so  it  might 
be  punishable  by  the  civil  law,  without  a  violation  of  civil 
liberty.  A  fundamental  purpose  of  the  Mosaic  polity  was 
the  abolition  of  idolatrous  worship,  and  the  substitution  in  its 
place,  and  the  maintenance,  of  true  religion  in  the  world. 
The  only  agency,  adequate  to  the  production  of  this  result,  aa 
far  as  human  wisdom  can  see,  was  this  very  institution  of  the 
Hebrew  theocracy. 

The  design  of  the  present  chapter  is  to  examine  and  unfold 
the  true  nature  and  bearing  of  this  element  of  the  Hebrew 
constitution. 

In  Exodus  19  :  4r-6,  we  find  this  remarkable  and  important 

*  Mathews'  Bib.  and  Civ.  Gov.  Lect.  1. 


4:58  COMMSJSITAEIES   ON   THE 

record.  God  there  addresses  the  Israelites  thus  : — "Te  have 
seen  what  I  did  unto  the  Efrjptians,  and  how  I  bare  you  on 
eagles'  wings,  and  brought  you  unto  myself.  !N^ow,  therefore, 
if  ye  will  hear  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep  ray  covenant,  then 
ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  me  above  all  people  ;  for 
all  the  earth  is  mine,  and  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of 
priests,  and  an  holy  nation." 

The  nature  of  this  covenant  is  still  more  clearly  disclosed 
in  a  further  account  of  it,  in  the  twenty-ninth  chapter  of 
Deuteronomy.  "  Ye  stand  this  day,"  says  Moses  in  an  ad- 
dress to  his  countrymen,  "your  captains  of  your  tribes,  your 
elders  and  your  officers,  and  all  the  men  of  Israel ;  that  ye 
should  enter  into  covenant  with  Jehovah  thy  God,  and  into 
his  oath  that  he  maketh  with  thee  this  day,  that  he  may 
establish  thee  this  day  for  a  people  unto  himself;  (for  ye 
know  how  we  have  dwelt  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  how  wo 
came  through  the  nations  that  ye  p:i3sed  by,  and  ye  have 
seen  their  abominations  and  their  idols,  wood  and  stone, 
silver  and  gold,  which  were  among  them ;)  lest  there  should 
be  among  you  man,  or  woman,  or  family,  or  tribe,  whose 
heart  turneth  away  from  Jehovah  our  God,  to  go  and  serve 
the  gods  of  those  nations." 

Here  wc  have  what  Lowman,*  not  inaptly,  calls  the  origin- 
al contract  of  the  Hebrew  government.  Two  principles  con- 
stitute the  sum  of  it;  viz.  1.  the  maintenance  of  the  worship 
of  one  God,  in  opposition  to  the  prevailing  polytheism  of  the 
times ;  and  2.  as  conducive  to  this  main  end,  the  separation 
of  the  Israelites  from  other  nations,  so  as  to  prevent  the 
formation  of  dangerous  and  corrupting  alliances. 

Without  stopping  to  inquire  critically  into  the  meaning  of 
the  several  expressions  here  employed,  the  general  sense  of 
the  transaction  is  plainly  to  this  effect : — If  the  Hebrews 
would  voluntarily  receive  Jehovah  for  their  king,  and  would 
honor  and  worship  him  as  the  one  true  God,  in  opposition  to 

*  Civ.  Gov.  oftheHeb.  C.  1. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS  459 

all  idolatry,  then,  though  God,  as  sovereign  of  the  world, 
rules  over  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  he  would  govern  the 
Hebrew  nation  by  laws  of  his  own  framing,  and  would  bless 
it  with  a  more  particular  and  immediate  protection. 

This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  St.  Paul,  if 
bishop  Warburton*  has  correctly  interpreted  a  passage  in  his 
letter  to  the  Gilatians.f  Speaking  of  the  law  of  Moses,  the 
apostle  says,  "  It  was  added  because  of  transgressions."  It 
was  ADDED.  To  what  was  it  added  ?  To  the  patriarchal 
religion  of  the  unity,  says  the  learned  prelate.  To  what  end? 
Because  of  transgressions ;  that  is,  according  to  the  same 
authority,  the  transgressions  of  polytheism  and  idolatry ;  into 
which  the  rest  of  mankind  were  already  absorbed,  and  the 
Jews  themselves  were  hastening  apace. 

To  this  agrees  the  opinion  of  Maimonides,:}:  the  most 
learned  and  judicious  of  the  Hebrew  doctors.  He  observes, 
that  the  first  intention  of  the  Mosaic  law,  as  is  clearly  evident 
from  many  parts  of  the  scriptures,§  was  to  eradicate  idolatry, 
and  to  obliterate  the  memory  of  it,  and  of  those  who  were 
addicted  to  it ;  to  banish  every  thing  that  might  lead  men  to 
practise  it,  as  pythons,  soothsayers,  diviners,  enchanters, 
augurs,  astrologers,  necromancers,  &c. ;  and  to  prevent  all 
assimilation  to  their  practices.  He  assigns  this  general  rea- 
son for  many  of  the  laws,  that  they  were  made  to  keep  men 
from  idolatry,  and  from  such  false  opinions  and  practices,  as 
are  akin  to  idolatry, — incantations,  divinations,  soothsaying, 
passing  through  the  fire,  and  the  like. 

Idolatry  had  now  reached  its  most  gigantic  height,  and 
spread  its  broad  and  deadly  shadow  over  the  earth.  To  pre- 
serve the  doctrine  of  the  unity,  in  the  midst  of  a  polytheistic 
world,  was  the  fundamental   design  of  the   Mosaic  polity. 

*  Div.  Leg.  B.  5,  S.  1.  f  iv.  21. 

X  Townley's  More  Nevochim  of  Maimonides,  C.  3. 
§  See  the  Pentateuch  pansim.  and  many  other  places  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 


460  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

To  this  all  other  purposes,  however  important  in  themselves, 
or  useful  in  their  general  action,  were  both  subordinate  and 
subservient.  If  this  were  a  design  worthy  the  wisdom  and 
goodness  of  God,  none  of  the  means  adapted  to  promote  it, 
can  be  beneath  his  contrivance,  or  can,  in  the  least  degree, 
derogate  from  the  dignity  and  perfection  of  his  nature. 

This  single  observation  sweeps  away  at  once  the  foundation 
of  most  of  the  silly  ridicule,  with  which  infidels  have  amused 
themselves,  in  their  disquisitions  on  these  venerable  insti- 
tutes. Statutes,  which,  at  first  sight,  and  considered  apart 
from  their  true  relations  and  intentions,  seem  frivolous,  and 
unworthy  the  wisdom  and  majesty  of  God,  assume  quite  a 
different  air,  and  appear  in  a  light  altogether  new,  when 
viewed  as  necessary  provisions  against  the  danger  of  ido- 
latry. 

Let  me  illustrate  this  observation  with  a  few  examples. 
In  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus,*  we  find  the  fol- 
lowing law :  "  Ye  shall  not  round  the  corners  of  your  heads, 
neither  shalt  thou  mar  the  corners  of  thy  beard."  This  law 
has  called  forth  many  a  sneer  from  men,  who,  without  any 
remarkable  claim  to  such  a  distinction,  arrogate  to  themselves 
the  exclusive  title  of  free  thinkers.  But  to  those  who  really 
think  with  freedom  and  candor,  it  will  appear  a  direction, 
not  only  proper,  but  important,  when  it  is  known,  that  it  was 
aimed  against  an  idolatrous  custom,  which  was  extensively 
prevalent,  when  the  law  was  given.  Herodotus  says,  that 
the  Arabians  cut  their  hair  round  in  honor  of  Bacchus,  who 
is  represented  as  having  worn  his  in  that  manner,f  and  that 
the  Macians,  a  people  of  Lybia,  cut  their  hair  so  as  to  leave 
a  rounded  tuft  on  the  top  of  the  head,:}:  just  as  the  Chinese 
do  at  the  present  day.  Bochart,§  cited  by  Patrick,!  notes, 
that  the  Idumaeans,  Moabites,  Ammonites,  and  other  inhabi- 
tants of  Arabia  Deserta,  are  called  "  circumcised  in  the  cor- 

*  V.  27.  t  Lib.  3.  C.  8.  1  Lib.  4.  C.  175. 

2  Canaan,  1.  1.  C.  6.  ||  In  loc. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  461 

ners,"  that  is,  of  the  Iiead.  The  hair  was  much  used  in  divi- 
nation among  the  Greeks.  Homer  represents  it  as  a  common 
custom  for  parents  to  dedicate  the  hair  of  their  children  to 
some  god  ;  which,  when  thej  came  to  manhood,  was  cut  off, 
and  offered  to  the  deity.  In  accordance  with  this  custom, 
Achilles,  at  the  funeral  of  Patroclus,  cut  off  his  golden 
locks,  which  his  fother  had  dedicated  to  the  river  god  Sper- 
chius,  and  cast  them  into  the  flood.*  Virgil  represents  the 
topmost  lock  of  hair  as  sacred  to  the  infernal  gods.f  Idola- 
trous priests,  ministers  of  a  false  religion,  made  the  mode  of 
cutting  the  hair  and  beard,  forbidden  by  Moses,  essential  to 
the  acceptable  worship  of  the  gods,  and  efiicacious  in  procur- 
ing the  several  bles&ings  prayed  for  by  the  worshippers.  It 
was  to  eradicate  idolatry,  which  was,  so  to  speak,  the  hinge 
on  which  the  whole  law  turned,  that  Moses  introduced  this 
prohibitory  statute  into  his  code. 

In  the  twenty  third  chapter  of  Exodus,:|:  the  following  sta- 
tute occurs  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  seethe  (boil)  a  kid  in  his 
mother's  milk."  Dr.  Clarke  §  thinks,  that  the  sole  design  of 
this  law  was  to  inculcate  a  lesson  of  humanity.  It  is  proba- 
ble, however,  that  it  was  directed  against  an  ancient  custom 
of  idolatry.  Dr.  Cudworth  |  cites  a  manuscript  comment  of 
a  Karaite  Jew  on  this  place,  to  the  effect,  that  the  ancient 
heathen  were  accustomed,  when  they  had  gathered  in  all 
their  fruits,  to  take  a  kid,  and  boil  it  in  the  dam's  milk,  and 
then,  in  a  magical  way,  to  sprinkle  with  it  their  trees, 
fields,  gardens,  and  orchards,  thinking  thereby  to  make  them 
more  fruitful.  Spencer^  has  shown  that  the  same  idolatrous 
custom,  prompted  by  a  similar  motive,  prevailed  among  the 
ancient  Zabii. 

*  Horn.  II.  1.  23.  VT.  124  seqq. 

f  Aen.  1.  4.  vv.  698  seqq.  See  also  Dr.  A.  Clarke's  Commentary  on 
Levit.  xix.  27. 

t  V.  19.  §  In  loo. 

11  Discourse  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  36.       f  De  Legibus  Hebraeorum. 


462  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

A  similar  reasou  there  was  for  the  statute,  which  forbade 
the  wearing  of  "  garments  mingled  of  linen  and  woollen."* 
Maimonidesf  informs  us,  that  he  found  it  enjoined  in  old 
magical  books,  that  the  idolatrous  priests  should  clothe  them- 
selves in  robes  of  linen  and  woollen  mixed  together,  for  the 
purpose  of  performing  their  religious  ceremonies.  A  divine 
virtue  was  attributed  to  this  mixture.  It  was  supposed  that 
it  would  make  their  sheep  produce  more  wool,  and  their 
fields  better  harvests. 

On  the  same  ground  rested  the  law,  which  enjoined,  that 
"  the  woman  shall  not  wear  that  which  pertaineth  unto  a 
man,  neither  shall  a  man  put  on  a  woman's  garment."  :j: 
Maimonides§  found  it  commanded  in  the  books  of  the  idola- 
ters, that  men  in  the  worship  of  Yenus,  the  Astarte  or  Ashta- 
roth  of  the  Phenicians,  should  wear  the  dress  of  women,  and 
that  women,  in  the  worship  of  Mars,  the  Moloch  of  the  east, 
should  put  on  the  armor  of  men.  Macrobius  ||  cites  the  old 
Greek  author  Philocorus,  as  saying,  concerning  the  Asiatics, 
that,  when  they  sacrificed  to  their  Venus,  the  men  were 
dressed  in  women's  apparel,  and  the  women  in  men's,  to  de- 
note that  she  was  esteemed  by  them  both  male  and  female. 
It  was  a  common  practice  of  idolatry  to  confound  the  sexes 
of  the  gods,  making  the  same  deity  sometimes  a  god,  and 
sometimes  a  goddess.  The  Cyprians  represented  their  Yenus 
with  a  beard  and  sceptre,  and  of  masculine  proportions,  but 
dressed  as  a  woman.  The  Syrians  worshipped  her  under  the 
form  of  a  woman,  attired  as  a  man.  At  Rome,  they  had 
both  a  male  and  female  Fortune ;  also,  as  Servius  and  Lac- 
tantius  tell  us,  an  armed  Yenus.  This  doctrine  of  a  commu- 
nity of  sexes  in  their  gods,  led  the  idolaters  to  confound,  as 
far   as   possible,  their  own   sex,  in  their  worship  of  them. 

*  Levit  xix.  19.  f  Townley's  More  Nev.  c.  12. 

X  Deut.  xxii  5.  g  More  Nev.  c.  12. 

II  L.  3,  c.  8,  cited  by  Townley  in  hia  33d  Note  on  Maimon.  Mor.  Nev. 
/Use  by  Lowman  on  Civ.  Gov.  of  the  Hebrevpa,  C.  1. 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT   EEBKEWS.  463 

Hence  the  custom,  so  widely  difi'used,  of  men  and  women 
wearing  a  habit  different  from  that  of  their  sex,  in  perform- 
ing religious  rites.  Julius  Firmicus  describes  this  manner  ot 
worship  as  common  among  the  Assyrians  and  Africans. 
From  them  it  passed  into  Europe.  It  was  pi*actised  in 
Cyprus,  at  Coos,  at  Argos,  at  Athens,  and  other  places  in 
Greece.*  At  Rome,  it  does  not  appear  ever  to  have  become 
a  common  practice,  but  we  read  of  Clodius  dressing  himself 
as  a  woman,  and  mingling  with  the  Eoman  ladies  in  the 
feast  of  the  Bona  Dea.f 

The  law,  which  prohibited  the  sowing  of  a  field  with  mixed 
seeds,:}:  was  based  on  a  like  reason.  It  is  true,  that  ]VIichaelis§ 
and  Dr.  Clarke  ||  regard  this  prohibition  as  simply  a  pruden- 
tial maxim  of  agriculture,  designed  to  make  the  Israelites 
careful  to  have  their  seed  as  pure  as  possible,  and  so  to  pre- 
vent the  evils  of  negligent  and  slovenly  farming.  More  rea- 
sonable appears  the  opinion  of  Maimonides,^"  Spencer,**  and 
Patrick,ff  who  regard  the  statute  in  question  as  directed 
against  idolatry,  the  very  name  and  memory  of  which  the 
Mosaic  law  sought  to  blot  out  and  destroy.  Maimonides  in- 
terprets Lerit.  19  :  19,  as  forbidding  the  grafting  of  one  spe- 
cies of  tree  into  another,  and  says,  that  the  prohibition  was 
designed  to  guard  the  Israelites  against  a  most  abominable 
and  corrupting  practice  of  idolatry.  The  Zabii  performed 
this  kind  of  grafting,  especially  of  olives  into  citrons,  as  a  re- 
ligious rite,  accompanying  it,  at  the  moment  of  insertion, 
with  the  most  indecent  actions.:}:;}:     Dr.  Spencer  observes,  that 

*  See  Young  on  Idolatrous  Corruptions  in  Religion,  vol.  1,  pp.  97-105. 

t  Dr.  A.  Clarke  in  loc.  J  Levit.  xix.  19.  Deut.  xxii.    9. 

§  Comment,  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  268.  ||  In  loc. 

^  More  Nev.  by  Townley,  C.  12.  **  De  Leg.  Heb.  1.  2.  c.  18. 

ff  Comment,  on  Deut.  xxii.  9. 

\l  The  words  of  Maimonides  are  : — "  Oportere,  ut  cum  una  species  in 
aliam  inseritur,  surculum  inserendum  manu  sua  tenet  formosa  quaedam 
puella,  quam  praeternaturali  ratione  vir  quidam  yitiet  et  corrumpat, 
ipsaque  congressus  hujus  tempore  plantulam  illam  arbori  infigat." 


464  COMMENTAKIES   ON    THE 

it  was  a  rite  of  idolatry  to  sow  barley  and  dried  grapes  to- 
gether. By  this  action  the  idolaters  consecrated  their  vine- 
yards to  Ceres  and  Bacchus,  and  expressed  a  dependence  on 
these  deities  for  their  fruitfulness.  It  was,  in  effect,  a  renun- 
ciation of  the  care  and  blessing  of  the  true  God,  and  a  decla- 
ration of  their  hope  in  the  favor  of  idol  gods.  Bishop 
Patrick  well  remarks,  that  if  the  Israelites  had  followed  this 
custom,  it  M'ould  have  made  the  corn  and  the  grapes,  that 
sprang  up  from  such  seed,  impure,  because  polluted  by  ido- 
latry. 

These  laws,  and  others  which  infidelity  has  dared  to  re- 
proach and  ridicule  as  frivolous,  did  the  divine  wisdom  enact, 
in  order  to  eradicjite  idolatry,  and  establish  the  fundamental 
truths  of  the  existence  and  unity  of  the  living  God.  The 
design  of  them  was,  to  keep  the  Israelites  from  walking  iu 
the  ordinances  and  manners  of  the  nations,  which  were  cast 
out  before  them.*  And  to  this  end  they  were  well  adapted. 
It  was  essentia],  that  the  idolatrous  ceremonies  of  the  gentiles 
should  be  prohibited,  because,  if  they  had  been  permitted, 
they  could  not  fail  to  lead  to  idolatry. 

We  find  a  very  remarkable  law  in  Leviticus  xvii.  1-7.  It 
forbids,  even  on  pain  of  death,  the  killing  of  any  animal  for 
food,  during  the  abode  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness, 
unless  it  was  at  the  same  time  brought  to  the  altar,  and 
offered  to  the  Lord.  This  certainly  appears,  at  first  view, 
not  only  harsh  and  rigorous,  but  even  unjust  and  tyrannical. 
But  it  was  aimed  against  idolatry,  which,  as  we  shall  soon 
see,  was  treason  in  the  Hebrew  state,  and  therefore  justly 
punishable  with  death.  The  statute  is  thus  translated  by 
Michaelis  :f — "  Whoever  among  the  Israelites  killeth  an  ox, 
sheep,  or  goat,  either  within  or  without  the  camp,  and  bring- 
eth  it  not  before  the  convention-tent,  to  him  it  shall  be 
accounted  bloodguiltiness ;  he  hath  shed  blood,  and  shall  be 
rooted  out  from  among  his  people ;  and  this,  in  order  that 

*  Lev.  xviii.  3,  xs.  53.  f  Mich.  Comment.  Art.  244. 


LAWS    OF   THE    AJS[CIENT   HEBREWS.  465 

the  children  of  Israel  may  bring  to  the  door  of  the  conven- 
tion-tent their  offerings  which  they  have  hitherto  made  in  the 
field,  and  give  them  nnto  the  priest,  to  be  slain  as  feast 
offerings  in  honor  of  Jehovah  ;  that  his  priest  may  sprinkle 
the  blood  on  the  altar  of  Jehovah,  and  bm'n  the  fat  as  an 
offering  perfume  in  honor  of  him ;  and  that  no  man  may 
any  more  make  offerings  to  satyrs,  running  after  them  with 
idolatrous  lust."  "  The  reason  and  design  of  this  law,"  ob- 
serves the  same  writer,*  "we  have  no  need  to  conjecture; 
for  Moses  himself  expressly  mentions  it.  Considering  the 
propensity  to  idolatry,  which  the  people  brought  with  them 
from  Egypt,  it  was  necessary  to  take  care  lest,  when  any  one 
lilled  such  animals  as  were  nsual  for  sacrifices,  he  should  be 
guilty  of  superstitiously  offering  them  to  an  idol.  This  pre- 
caution was  the  more  reasonable,  because,  in  ancient  times, 
it  was  so  very  common  to  make  an  offering  of  the  flesh  it 
was  intended  it  eat.  And  hence  arose  a  suspicion,  not  very 
unreasonable,  that  whoever  killed  animals,  usually  devoted 
to  the  altar,  offered  them  of  course ;  and,  therefore,  Moses 
enjoined  them  not  to  kill  such  animals  otherwise  than  in 
public,  and  to  offer  them  all  to  the  true  God ;  that  so  it 
might  be  out  of  their  power  to  make  them  offerings  to  idols, 
by  slaughtering  them  privately,  and  under  the  pretence  of 
using  them  for  food."  This  law  was  expressly  repealed  on 
the  entrance  of  the  nation  into  the  promised  land,f  when 
the  enforcement  of  it  would  have  become  a  hardship  and  a 
tyranny. 

There  is  a  part  of  the  Mosaic  code,  to  which  I  must  call  the 
reader's  attention  in  this  connexion ;  I  mean  that  which  con.- 
cerns  clean  and  unclean  meats.  The  law  upon  this  point  has 
ever  been  most  open  to  the  ridicule  of  unbelievers.  It  de- 
scends to  so  minute  a  detail,  that  men,  ignorant  of  its  true 
nature  and  end,  have,  on  account  of  its  apparent  unfitness  to 
engage   the  concern   of  God,  hastily  concluded  against  its 

*  Ibid.  Art.  244.  t  ^eut.  xii.  15. 

30 


-4:66  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

divine  original.  But  if  they  would  but  take  the  trouble  to 
reflect,  that  the  purpose  of  separating  one  people  from  the 
contagion  of  universal  idolatry  was  a  design  not  unworthy  of 
the  governor  of  the  nniverse,  they  would  see  the  brightest 
marks  of  divine  wisdom  in  an  institution,  which  took  away 
from  that  people  the  very  grounds  of  all  commerce,  whether 
of  trade  or  friendship,  with  foreign  nations.  Doubtless  the 
design  of  this  institution,  as  of  most  others  in  the  Mosaic 
system,  was  manifold.  Among  the  ends  to  be  answered  by 
it,  a  not  unimportant  one  was  to  furnish  the  chosen  tribes  a 
code  of  wholesome  dietetics.  That  considerations  of  this 
nature  entered  into  the  legislator's  mind,  is  the  unanimous 
opinion  of  the  best  interpreters,  both  Jews  and  Christians. 
Maimonides*  labors,  with  great  zeal  and  learning,  to  prove  the 
correctness  of  this  view  of  the  law.  Dr.  Adam  Clarkef 
speaks  of  the  animals  denominated  nnclean  as  affording  a 
gross  nutriment,  often  the  parent  of  scorbutic  and  scrofulous 
disorders,  and  of  those  called  clean  as  furnishing  a  copious 
and  wholesome  nutriment,  and  free  from  all  tendency  to  gen- 
erate disease.  M.  de  Pastoret,:}:  a  celebrated  French  writer, 
notices  the  constant  attention  of  Moses  to  the  health  of  the 
people,  as  one  of  the  most  distinguishing  traits  in  his  char- 
acter as  a  legislator.  The  flesh  of  the  prohibited  animals,  that 
of  the  swine  especially,  was  certainly  calculated  to  aggravate, 
if  not  to  produce,  that  shocking  malady,  the  leprosy,  which 
was  endemic  in  the  east,  and  prevailed,  to  a  frightful  extent, 
among  the  inhabitants  of  Palestine.  Purposes  of  a  moral 
nature,  also,  entered,  beyond  all  question,  into  the  general 
design  of  the  law.  The  distinction  of  meats  tended  to  pro- 
mote the  moral  improvement  of  the  Israelites  by  impressing 

*  See  his  More  Nevochim  in  various  places. 

t  Commentary  in  loc. 

j  Moyse,  considere  comme  Legislateur  et  comme  Moraliste,  C.  7.  Cited 
by  Townley  in  the  Dissertations  prefixed  to  his  Translation  of  the  More 
Nevochim. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  467 

their  minds  with  the  conviction,  that  as  they  were  a  pecu- 
liar," so  they  ought  to  be  a  "  holy  nation ;"  by  prohibiting 
the  eating  of  flesh,  whose  gross  and  feculent  nature  might 
stimulate  vicious  propensities ;  and  by  symbolizing  the  dispo- 
sitions and  conduct  to  be  encouraged  and  cultivated,  or  to  be 
abhorred  and  avoided.  Dr.  Townley^  cites,  as  concurring  in 
this  view,  Levi  Barcelona,  Eusebius,  Origen,  Justin  Martyr, 
Tertullian,  and  others. 

But,  though  this  law  aimed  to  promote  the  health  and 
morals  of  the  Hebrews,  such  considerations  did  not  exhaust 
the  scope  and  intention  of  it.  Its  leading  design  was  to  coun- 
teract idolatry,  by  separating  the  Israelites  from  their  idola- 
trous neighbors,  and  so  preventing  the  infection  of  their 
example  in  religion  and  manners.  This  opinion  does  not  rest 
on  mere  conjecture  ;  nor  even  on  the  basis  of  logical  deduc- 
tion from  admitted  premises.  The  main  intention  of  the  law 
is  unequivocally  declared  in  the  20th  chapter  of  Leviticus  :f 
"Ye  shall  not  walk  in  the  manners  of  the  nations  which  I 
cast  out  before  you ;  *  *  *  ye  shall  therefore  put  differ- 
ence between  clean  beasts  and  unclean,  and  between  unclean 
fowls  and  clean  •    *     *     *     and  ye  shall  be  holy  unto  me." 

The  wisdom  of  this  provision,  considering  the  end  in  view, 
is  most  admirable.  "  Intimate  friendships,"  observes  a  saga- 
cious writer,:}:  "  are  in  most  cases  formed  at  table  ;  and  with 
the  man  with  whom  I  can  neither  eat  nor  drink,  let  our  inter- 
course in  business  be  what  it  may,  I  shall  seldom  become  as 
familiar  as  with  him,  whose  guest  I  am,  and  he  mine.  If  we 
have,  besides,  from  education,  an  abhorrence  of  the  food 
which  each  other  eats,  this  forms  a  new  obstacle  to  closer  inti- 
macy. Nothing  more  effectual  could  possibly  be  devised  to 
keep  one  people  distinct  from  another.  It  causes  the  dif- 
ference between  them  to  be  ever  present  to  the  mind,  touching, 
as  it  does,  upon  so  many  points  of  social  and  every  day  con- 

*  Fourth  Diss,  prefixed  to  his  Trans,  of  the  Mor.  Nev.      f  Vv.  23-26. 
X  Mich.  Com.  Art.  203. 


'46'8  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

tact.  It  is  far  more  efficient,  in  its  results,  as  a  rule  of  dis- 
tinction, than  any  difference  in  doctrine  or  worship,  that  men 
could  entertain.  It  is  a  mutual  repulsion,  continually  ope- 
rating. The  effect  of  it  may  be  estimated  from  the  fact,  that 
no  nation,  in  which  a  distinction  of  meats  has  been  enforced 
as  part  of  a  religious  system,  has  ever  changed  its  religion." 

It  is  perfectly  evident  from  the  history  of  the  Israelites, 
that  their  entire  isolation  from  other  nations  was  the  only 
means,  save  a  miraculous  control  of  their  understanding  and 
will,  of  abolishing  idolatry  among  them.  Polytheism  was 
then  the  universal  religion  of  mankind ;  and  the  Jews,  as 
Michaelis*  has  observed,  often  appear  to  have  had  their  heads 
turned,  and  to  have  been  driven,  as  if  by  a  sort  of  phrensy, 
to  the  belief  and  worship  of  many  gods. 

Yet  this  circumstance,  strange  as  it  now  appears,  when 
duly  considered,  forms  no  just  ground  even  of  wonder; 
much  less,  of  any  supercilious  self-complacency  on  our  part. 
Opinions  are  extremely  infectious,  as  we  ourselves  have  but 
too  many  proofs,  in  the  thousand  extravaganzas  of  the  times. 
Let  us  not  flatter  ourselves,  that,  had  we  lived  then,  we  should 
have  been  superior  to  the  most  absurd  and  besotted  follies. 
Even  Solomon,  a  learned  man  and  a  philosopher,  to  say 
nothing  of  his  inspiration,  incredible  as  it  seems  to  us,  built 
idol  temples,  and  sacrificed  to  strange  gods.  The  Jews  in 
our  day  are  exposed  to  a  similar  influence  from  Christianity, 
which  is  powerfully  felt  by  them.  Their  peculiarities  are 
invaded  by  christian  institutions  and  manners.  In  our  country, 
for  example,  the  festival  of  Christmas  is  extensively  observed 
by  them,  though  it  is,  strictly  speaking,  no  more  a  part  of 
their  religion  or  manners,  than  the  festival  of  Baal-peor.  I 
was  myself  once  invited  to  the  celebration  of  this  festival  in 
a  Jewish  family.  On  my  venturing  to  call  the  attention  of 
my  host  to  the  incongruity  of  such  an  observance  by  a  Jew, 
he  admitted  it,  and  added,  that  he  had  said  the  same  thing  to 

*  Mich.  Com.  Art.  32 


LAWS   OF   THE   A2JCIEKT   HEBREWS.  469 

his  children  that  very  morning,  when  thej  had  asked  him 
for  Christmas  presents.  Their  reply  to  him  was,  "  that  all 
children  received  presents  that  day,  and  they  wanted  them 
as  well."  This  conversation  let  much  light  into  my  mind  on 
the  defection  to  idolatry  of  the  ancient  Israelites. 

Another  point.  Those  who  wonder  at  the  frequent  lapses 
of  this  people,  forget,  that  idolatry  did  not  consist  simply  in 
the  worship  of  those  "  dead  things  called  gods  of  gold  and 
silver,"  or  of  "  some  vile  beast  laid  over  with  vermilion  set 
fast  in  a  wall."  On  the  contrary,  idolatiy  touched  all  the 
infirmities  of  the  human  heart.  The  splendid  festival  of  the 
idol-worshipper  veiled  the  most  voluptuous  practices,  and 
initiated  into  the  most  infamous  mysteries.  The  heart  of  the 
Israelite  was  of  flesh,  sensual  and  carnal,  like  that  of  other 
men.  Idolatry  was  an  appeal  to  his  susceptibility  of  sensual 
impressions  and  pleasures.  It  was  a  stealth  into  dark  and 
voluptuous  rites.  It  offered  a  ready  aliment  to  the  secret  and 
wavering  passions  of  the  rebellious  Hebrews.  Hence  their 
frequent  lapses  into  the  vilest  rites  of  their  idolatrous  neigh- 
bors, despite  the  clear  proofs,  with  which  they  had  been 
favored,  of  the  unity  and  sovereignty  of  the  divine  being.* 
That  madness  of  debauchery,  which  was  exhibited  in  the  city 
of  Gibeah,f  reveals  the  true  source  of  so  obstinate  an  attach- 
ment to  the  idolatry,  which  consecrated  such  vices. 

The  idolatry  of  the  ancient  Israelites  had,  moreover,  this 
material  circumstance  of  mitigation.  They  never,  at  the  very 
height  of  their  polytheistic  madness,  formally  renounced  the 
worship  of  Jehovah.  The  follies  of  idolatry  are  endless  ;  and 
among  them,  a  leading  one  was  the  belief  in  what  Warburton 
calls  "  gentilitial  and  local  gods."  The  former  accompanied 
the  nations,  by  whom  they  were  worshipped,  in  all  their  mi- 
grations; the  latter  were  immoveably  fixed  to  the  spots, 
where  they  were  adored  ;  or,   as  the  learned  prelate:}:  has 

*  D'Israeli's  Genius  of  Judaism,  C.  4. 

t  Judg.  xix.  22-25.  J  Divine  Legation,  B.  5,  S.  3. 


470  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

qnaintl}  expressed  it, — "  the  one  class  were  ambi^latory,  the 
other  stationary." 

This  principle  led  to  an  intercommunity  of  worship;  so 
that  the  adoption  and  worship  of  a  new  deity  was  hy  no  means 
looked  upon  as  a  necessary  renunciation  of  those  worshipped 
before.  Thus  it  is  recorded  of  the  mixed  rabble  of  idolators, 
with  whom  the  king  of  Assyria,  after  the  conquest  and  re- 
moval of  the  ten  tribes,  had  peopled  Samaria,  that  "  they 
feared  Jehovah,  and  served  their  own  gods."*  So  also 
Sophocles  makes  Antigone  say  to  her  father,  that  "  a  stranger 
should  both  venerate  and  abhor  those  things,  which  are  vene- 
rated and  abhorred  in  the  city  where  he  resides."  Celsus 
gives  as  a  reason  for  such  complaisance,  the  doctrine,  that 
the  several  parts  of  the  world  were,  from  the  beginning, 
parcelled  out  to  several  powers,  each  of  whom  had  his  own. 
peculiar  allotment  and  residence.  It  was  the  same  idea,  that 
led  Plato  to  adopt  and  advocate  the  maxim,  that  nothing 
ought  ever  to  be  changed  in  the  religion  we  find  established 
in  a  country. 

In  accordance  with  this  principle,  the  Israelites  combined 
the  worship  of  idols  with  the  worship  of  the  true  God,  who, 
in  amazing  condescension,  assumed  the  title  of  a  tutelary  local 
God,  and  chose  Judaea  as  his  peculiar  regency.f  Thus, 
when  the  people  "  made  a  calf  in  Horeb,":{:  it  was  evidently 
designed  as  a  representative  of  the  God  who  had  wrought 
deliverance  for  them  ;  for  Aaron  proclaimed  a  feast  to  Jeho- 
vah, not  to  Isis  or  Osiris.  So  Jeroboam,  when  he  set  up  the 
golden,  calves  at  Dan  and  Bethel,§  does  not  give  the  slightest 
intimation  of  a  formal  intention  to  renounce  the  worship  of 
Jehovah.  And  Jehu,  one  of  his  successors,  while  he  still 
persists  in  the  sin  of  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat,  that  is, 
in  the  worship  of  the  calves,  actually  boasts  of  being  a  zealot 

*  2  Kings  xvii.  33.  f  Warburton's  Piv.  Leg.  B.  5.  S.  3. 

t  Exod.  xxxii.  4 ;  Ps.  cvi.  19.  g  1  Kings  xii.  28-33. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  471 

for  Jehovah.*  Instances  of  the  like  nature  are  scattered 
throughout  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures ;  and  they  prove 
conclusively,  as  "Warburtonf  has  observed,  that  "  the  defec- 
tion of  Israel  did  not  consist  in  rejecting  Jehovah  as  a  false 
god,  or  in  renouncing  the  law  of  Moses  as  a  false  religion ; 
but  in  joining  foreign  worship  and  idolatrous  ceremonies  to 
the  ritual  of  the  true  God.  To  this  they  were  stimulated,  as 
by  various  other  motives,  so  especially  by  the  luxurious  and 
immoral  rites  of  paganism." 

•  These  observations  naturally  lead  us  to  the  inquiry,  whe- 
ther the  suppression  of  idolatry  was  a  design  worthy  to 
engage  the  care  of  the  divine  mind ;  in  other  words,  whether 
idolatry  was  a  matter  of  mere  harmless  speculation,  or  a 
fountain  of  dangerous  immoralities,  and  a  prolific  source  of 
evils  to  the  human  race,  whenever  and  wherever  it  has  pre- 
vailed. 

The  religious  sentiment  has  ever  been  paramount,  either 
for  good  or  for  evil,  in  its  action  both  upon  societies  and 
individuals.  "  Wherewith  shall  I  come  before  Jehovah,  and 
bow  myself  before  the  high  God ;  shall  I  come  before  him 
with  thousands  of  rams,  or  with  ten  thousands  of  rivers  of 
oil;  shall  I  give  my  firstborn  for  my  transgression,  the  fruit 
of  my  body  for  the  sin  of  my  soul  ?":{: — is  the  piercing  cry, 
which  our  universal  nature  has  sent  up  to  heaven,  in  all  ages 
of  the  world.  Let  the  thirty  thousand  gods  of  the  Greeks 
and  Eomans,  the  costly  temples  reared  for  their  worship,  and 
the  countless  hecatombs  that  smoked  upon  their  altars ;  let 
the  long  and  painful  pilgrimages  of  whole  armies  of  devotees 
to  the  shrine  of  their  idolatry,  and  their  innumerable  and 
cruel  self-tortures,  inflicted  in  the  vain  hope  of  thereby  secur- 
ing the  divine  favor;  above  all,  let  the  rivers  of  human 
blood,  phed  to  glut  the  rapacity  of  some  sanguinary  deity, 
which  have  drenched  the  soil  of  every  nation  under  heaven, 
— attest  the  truth  of  this  observation. 

*  2  Kiugs  X.  16.  t  Div.  Leg.  B.  5.  S.  3  J  Mic.  vi.  6,  7. 


473  COMMENTARIKS    ON    THE 

"  Religion,"  says  Coleridge,*  '*  true  or  false,  is,  and  ever  has 
been,  the  centre  of  gravity  in  a  realm,  to  which  all  other 
things  must  and  will  accommodate  themselves."  The  sense 
which  mankind  have  ever  entertained  of  the  power  of  the 
religious  principle  in  moulding  human  character,  plainly 
appears  in  the  pains  taken  by  the  ancient  lawgivers  to 
impress  upon  those  for  whom  they  legislated,  an  idea  of  their 
inspiration  by  some  deity.  Minos,  lawgiver  of  the  Cretans, 
often  retired  to  a  cave,  where  he  boasted  of  having  familiar 
conversations  with  Jupiter,  whose  sanction  he  claimed  for  his 
legislation.  Mneves  and  Amasis,  renowned  legislators  of 
Egypt,  attributed  their  laws  to  Mercury.  Lycurgus  claimed 
the  sanction  of  Apollo  for  his  reformation  of  the  Spartan 
government.  Pythagoras  and  Zaleucus,  who  made  laws  for 
the  Crotoniates  and  Locrians,  ascribed  their  institutions  to 
Minerva.  Zathraustes,  lawgiver  of  the  Arimaspians,  gave 
out  that  he  had  his  ordinances  from  a  goddess  adored  by 
that  people.  Zoroaster  and  Zamolxis  boasted  to  the  Bactrians 
and  the  Getae  of  their  intimate  comrnunications  with  goddess 
Yesta.  And  Numa  amused  the  Romans  with  his  conver- 
Bations  with  the  nymph  Egeria. 

These  facts  demonstrate  a  universal  persuasion  of  the  con- 
trolling energy  of  the  religious  sentiment  over  men's  minds 
and  practices.  It  cannot,  indeed,  be  otherwise  than  that  the 
ideas  which  men  entertain  of  the  gods  they  worship,  should 
constitute  a  capital  element  in  the  formation  of  their  moral 
character.  Like  gods,  like  worshippers.  It  is  vain  to  expect, 
that  the  virtue  of  the  devotee  will  exceed  the  virtue  of  the 
divinity.  The  worshippers  of  a  bloody  Mars,  a  thievish 
Mercury,  an  incestuous  Jupiter,  and  a  voluptuous  Venus, 
could  hardly  help  being  sanguinary,  dishonest,  and  licentious. 

"Gods  partial,  changeful,  passionate,  unjust. 
Whose  attributes  were  rage,  revenge,  and  lust," 

*  Manual  for  Statesmen. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  473 

could  never  becorns  the  authors  of  the  opposite  virtues  in 
those  by  whom  they  were  adored.  "Whatever  sanctions  they 
might  annex  to  their  laws,  their  example  would  always  prove 
more  powerful  than  their  terrors. 

Plato  excluded  poets  from  his  republic,  dismissing  even 
Homer,  with  a  garland  on  his  head,  and  with  ointment 
poured  upon  him.  His  object,  in  this  otherwise  unaccount- 
able rigor,  was,  that  they  might  not  corrupt  the  right 
notions  of  God  \/ith  their  fables.  If  we  consider  the  absur- 
dity, as  well  as  the  immorality,  of  their  fictions,  we  shall 
hardly  be  disposed  to  blame  him.  They  distinguished  the 
gods  in  their  places  and  ways  of  living,  in  the  same  manner 
as  they  would  different  sorts  of  animals.  Some  they  placed 
under  the  earth  ;  some  in  the  sea;  some  in  woods  and  rivers; 
and  the  most  ancient  of  them  all  they  bound  in  hell.  Some 
are  set  to  trades  ;  one  is  a  smith  ;  another  is  a  weaver  ;  one 
is  a  warrior,  and  fights  with  men ;  others  are  harpers ;  and 
others,  still,  delight  in  archery  and  the  chase.  Gods  of  the 
sea,  the  rivers,  the  woods,  the  hills,  and  the  valleys ;  gods  of 
smithery,  music,  and  the  chase  ;  gods  of  wine,  war,  and  love ; 
— ^what  more  besotted  could  be  imagined  ?  The  father  of  the 
gods  himself  is  fast  bound  by  the  fates,  so  that  he  cannot, 
contrary  to  their  decrees,  save  his  own  offspring.  Not  seldom 
does  he  resort  to  policy  and  craft,  nay  to  the  basest  disguises 
and  hypocrisies,  to  accomplish  his  purposes,  which  are  often 
of  the  most  shameful  nature.  Storm,  darkness,  fear,  rage, 
madness,  fraud,  and  the  vilest  passions  were  invested 
with  divinity.  Unbounded  lusts  and  disgraceful  amours 
were  ascribed  by  the  poets  to  almost  all  the  gods.  There 
was  scarcely  a  member  of  the  Olympian  senate,  who  would 
now  be  admitted  to  decent  society  among  mortals.  N"o 
wonder  that  Plato  shut  out  from  his  commonwealth  a  class  of 
writers,  whose  extravagant  and  teeming  fancy  he  regarded  as 
the  source  of  these  monstrosities. 

It  was  a  principle  of  polytheism,  that  the  supreme  God, 


4:74  COMMENTAKTES   ON   THE 

after  he  had  made  the  world,  retreating,  as  it  were,  w^hollj 
into  himself,  had  committed  the  government  of  it  to  subor- 
dinate deities,  and  did  not  interfere  in  the  regulation  of 
human  affairs.  Thus  the  temporal  blessings  of  health,  long 
life,  fruitful  seasons,  plenty,  safety,  victory  over  enemies,  and 
such  like  advantages,  were  to  be  sought  from  these  demons, 
or  idols.  And  these  blessings  were  to  be  obtained,  and  the 
opposite  evils  averted,  not  by  the  practice  of  virtue  and 
beneficence,  but  by  the  use  of  some  magical  ceremonies,  or 
by  the  performance  of  certain  senseless  and  barbarous  rites 
of  worship.  That  this  was  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  idola- 
try, we  have  undoubted  proofs,  both  from  sacred  and  profane 
writers.  King  Ahaz,  in  2  Chronicles,*  says,  "  Because  the 
gods  of  the  kings  of  Syria  help  them,  therefore  will  I  sacrifice 
to  them,  that  they  may  help  me."  The  prophet  Hoseaf 
represents  the  Jews  of  his  time  as  saying,  "  I  wiii  go  after 
my  lovers  (the  idol  gods),  that  give  me  my  bread  and  my 
■water,  my  wool  and  my  flax,  mine  oil  and  ray  drink."  To  a 
reproof  from  Jeremiah  for  their  idolatry,  they  replied  :  "  As 
for  the  word  that  thou  hast  spoken  unto  us  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  we  will  not  hearken  unto  thee.  But  we  will  cer- 
tainly do  whatsoever  thing  goeth  forth  out  of  our  own  mouth, 
to  burn  incense  unto  the  queen  of  heaven,  and  to  pour  out, 
drink-offerings  unto  her,  as  we  have  done,  we,  and  our 
fathers,  our  kings,  and  our  princes,  in  the  cities  of  Judah, 
and  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem :  for  then  had  we  plenty  of 
victuals,  and  were  well  and  saw  no  evil.  But  since  we  left 
off  to  burn  incense  to  the  queen  of  heaven,  and  to  pour  out 
drink-offerings  unto  her,  we  have  wanted  all  things,  and 
have  been  consumed  by  the  sword  and  by  the  famine.":}: 
Here  they  aver,  in  substance,  that  as  long  as  they  had  wor- 
shipped the  queen  of  heaven,  all  had  gone  well  with  them, 
and  her,  therefore,  they  would  worship,  and  to  her  sacrifice, 
in  spite  of  his  admonitions.     To  the  like  purport  is  the  decla- 

*  xxviii.  23.  f  "•  ^-  t  ^^^-  ^^^^-  16-18. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  475 

ration  of  Plato.  In  his  work  De  Anima  Mundi,  speaking  of 
the  punishment  of  wicked  men,  he  says ;  "  All  these  things 
hath  Nemesis  decreed  to  be  executed  in  the  second  period  by 
the  ministry  of  vindictive  terrestrial  demons,  who  are  over- 
seers of  human  affairs  ;  to  which  demons  the  supreme  God 
hath  committed  the  government  of  this  world." 

But  was  not  this  a  harmless  philosophical  dogma?  By  no 
means.  It  was  a  doctrine,  not  more  false  in  point  of  fact, 
than  pernicious  in  its  results.  It  was  a  denial  of  the  pro- 
vidence of  God.  The  disbelief  of  this  great  truth  gave  plau- 
sibility, attractiveness,  and  energy  to  the  whole  system  of 
idolatry.  The  supreme  being  was  thought  to  be  too  exalted 
in  his  dignity  to  take  any  concern  in  human  conduct,  too  re- 
mote from  this  sublunary  scene  to  regard  its  vicissitudes  with 
any  interest,  too  much  absorbed  in  the  contemplation  of  his 
own  infinite  perfections  to  care  for  the  perfection  of  inferior 
beings,  too  much  engrossed  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  own  inde- 
pendent happiness  to  feel  any  desire  for  the  happiness  of 
creatures.  Ilence  his  existence  came  to  be,  either  totally 
forgotten,  or  regarded  with  indifference.  However  the  case 
might  have  been  with  a  few  philosophic  and  contemplative 
minds,  to  the  generality  of  mankind  the  true  God  was  as 
though  he  were  not.  They  referred  not  their  conduct  to  his 
direction,  for  his  power  had  nothing  to  do  with  their  happi- 
ness or  misery.  He  had  delegated  to  demons  the  government 
of  this  world.  The  agency  of  these  inferior  beings  controlled 
Us  affairs  ;  their  will  determined  the  blessings  or  calamities 
j)f  life.  While,  therefore,  it  was  wise  and  safe  to  neglect  the 
supreme  being,  it  was  unwise  and  unsafe  to  treat  with  a  like 
indifference  the  subordinate  deities,  to  whom  he  had  com- 
mitted the  administration  of  human  affairs.*  Thus  men 
came  to  think,  that  they  were  not  to  expect  the  blessings  of 
life  from  the  favor  of  the  one  true  God,  by  imitating  his 
purity    and    goodness;    but    from   a   Jupiter,   stained   with 

*  See  on  this  subject  Graves  on  the  Pent.  Pt.  2,  Lect.  1. 


476  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

crimes  that  wou.d  doom  a  mortal  to  the  gibbet  or  the  peni- 
tentiary ;  from  a  Mercury,  a  thief  and  a  patron  of  thieves ; 
from  a  Bacchus,  the  god  of  drunkenness ;  from  a  Mars,  the 
instigator  of  war  and  bloodshed;  or  from  a  Yeuus,  the  patron- 
ess of  all  manner  of  voluptuousness  and  debauchery.  Hence 
they  became,  almost  necessarily,  as  corrupt  in  practice,  as 
they  were  erroneous  and  grovelling  in  their  opinions.  The 
principles  of  moral  goodness  were  well  nigh  extinguished  in 
the  human  heart,  and  the  practice  of  the  moral  virtues  had 
almost  disappeared  from  tlie  earth.  And  intemperance, 
ferocity,  Inst,  fraud,  and  violence  might  have  brought  a 
second  deluge  upon  the  race,  had  not  the  truth  of  God  stood 
pledged  against  the  repetition  of  so  dire  a  calamity. 

But  further,  and  worse.  Idolatry  did  not  simply  lead  to 
vicious  practices,  it  even  consecrated  vice  in  its  sacred  rites. 
Incredible  as  it  may  seem,  uncleanness  formed  a  part  of  the 
religious  worship  paid  to  the  gods.  Persons  of  both  sexes  pros- 
tituted themselves  in  honor  of  Yenus,  Priapus,  Astarte,  Baal- 
peor,  and  other  filthy  and  loathsome  deities.  Of  these  obscene 
rites,  as  constituting  a  part  of  the  religion  of  idolaters,  we 
have  tlie  clearest  proofs  in  authors  of  undoubted  credit. 
Strabo*  informs  us,  that  a  single  temple  at  Corinth  main- 
tained more  than  a  thousand  religious  prostitutes.  Hero- 
dotus f  tells  us,  that  women  of  this  description  abounded 
among  the  Phenicians,  Babylonians,  and  other  eastern  na- 
tions. He  even  says,  that  by  an  express  law,  founded  on  an 
oracle,  it  was  ordained,  that  all  the  women  of  Babylon 
should,  at  least  once  in  their  lives,  repair  to  the  temple  of 
Venus,  and  prostitute  themselves  to  strangers.  Strangely 
enough  as  it  seems  to  me,  an  eminent  and  for  the  most  part 
judicious  author,:}:  has  labored  to  prove,  that  this  custom  must 
have  been  conducive  to  the  virtue  of  chastity.  Facts,  how- 
ever, contradict  the  theory  of  this  learned  writer.     Babylon, 

*  Geog.  1.  8.  t  Lib.  1.  c.  187. 

X  Goguet  in  his  Origin  of  Laws. 


LAWS   or   THE   ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  477 

by  the  testimony  of  both  sacred  and  profane  authors,  was 
one  vast  sink  of  pollution.  Its  inhabitants  made  a  particular 
study  of  all  that  could  delight  the  senses,  and  excite  and 
gratify  the  most  shameless  passions.  The  women  of  Cyprus 
sacrificed  their  chastity  before  marriage,  to  Venus.*  The 
Egyptians  had  religious  prostitutes,  who  were  consecrated  to 
Isis.f  The  Isiac  rites,  transported  to  Rome,  became  a  mere 
cloak  for  licentiousness.  Tiberius  caused  the  images  of  Isis 
to  be  thrown  into  the  Tiber.  But  her  worship  was  too  allur- 
ing to  be  suffered  to  die  out  and  disappear.  It  was,  there- 
fore, subsequently  revived  in  full  force,  and  Juvenal  speaks 
of  it  in  an  indignant  strain. :{:  Selden,  De  Diis  Syriis,  has 
fully  shown  the  impurities  of  the  ancient  idolatrous  worship. 
Bacchus,  Osiris,  and  Ceres  were  adored  with  rites,  which 
modesty  forbids  to  explain. §  That  these  religious  obscenities 
were  practised  in  the  days  of  Moses,  is  manifest  from  the 
history  of  the  Israelites,  who  committed  fornication  with  the 
daughters  of  Moab.  \\  The  immorality  was  perpetrated  at  a 
sacrificial  festival,  the  Moabitish  women  exposing  themselves 
in  honor  of  Baal-peor,  who  was  the  same  as  the  Priapus  of 
the  Homans.  It  is  further  evident  from  a  law  of  Moses,  for- 
bidding a  father  to  prostitute  his  daughter,  "  to  cause  her  to 
be  a  whore."  ^  This  law  must  be  understood  as  prohibiting 
the  exposure  of  a  daughter  as  an  act  of  religion,  for  surely 
no  man,  not  even  the  vilest  and  most  abandoned,  could  pros- 
titute a  child  to  purposes  of  common  whoredom. 

The  necessary  consequences  of  religious  doctrines  and 
ceremonies,  like  those  described  in  the  preceding  paragraph, 
was  the  extinction  of  all  true  religious  principle,  and  even  of 

*  Justin  1.  18.  c.  5.  Herod.  1.  1.  c.  187. 
f  Lewis's  Antiq.  of  the  Heb.  Rep.  B.  5,  c.  1. 

X  See  Anthon's  Class.  Diet.  Art.  Isis,  and  the  authorities  referred  to  by 
him. 

§  See  Lowman  on  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  1. 

U  Num.  XXV.  1-3.  1[  Levit.  xix.  29. 


478  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

all  the  principles  of  moral  virtue  and  goodness.  They  gave 
intensity  to  the  depraved  appetites  of  human  nature.  They 
put  the  bridle  upon  the  neck  of  lust,  and  caused  men  to  run 
riot  in  every  species  of  impurity. 

But  the  ancient  mythologists  represented  their  deities  under, 
if  possible,  a  still  more  malign  and  repulsive  light.  The  learned 
jjrofessor  Meiners*  says,  that  the  more  ancient  Greeks  imag- 
ined their  gods  to  be  envious  of  human  felicity.  Whenever 
any  extraordinary  success  attended  them,  they  were  filled  with 
terror,  lest  the  gods  should  bring  upon  them  some  dreadful 
evil.  Herodotusf  attributes  to  Solon,  in  his  interview  with 
Croesus,  the  formal  declaration, — "  The  gods  envy  the  happi- 
ness of  men."  The  Egyptian  monarch  Amasis  grounds  the 
withdrawment  of  his  friendship  from  Polycrates,  tyrant  of 
Samos,  on  the  notoriously  envious  nature  of  the  divine 
being.:};  The  sage  Artabanus  warns  Xerxes,  that  even  the 
blessings  which  the  gods  bestow,  are  derived  from  an  envious 
motive.§  A  similar  doctrine  prevailed  at  Kome,  agreeably 
to  which  the  great  Fabius,  as  Livy  informs  us,  remonstrated 
with  the  Roman  people  against  an  election  to  the  consulship 
in  his  old  age,  urging,  among  other  reasons,  that  some  divin- 
ity might  think  his  past  successes  too  great  for  mortal,  and 
turn  the  tide  of  fortune  against  him.  In  accordance  with  this 
doctrine,  we  find  even  the  reflecting  Tacitus  expressing  the 
opinion,  that  the  gods  interfere  in  human  afiairs  but  to 
punish.  II 

As  a  necessary  consequence,  almost  the  whole  of  the  religion 
of  the  ancient  pagan  world  consisted  in  rites  of  deprecation. 
Fear  was  the  leading  feature  of  their  religious  impressions. 
Hence  arose  that  most  horrid  of  all  religious  ceremonies, — the 
rite  of  human  sacrifice.  Of  this  savage  custom,  archbishop 
Magee,  in  one  of  the  notes  appended  to  his  Discourses  on 

*  Historia  Doctrinae  de  vero  Deo,  p.  208.        f  L.  1.  C.  32. 
X  Herod.  1.  3.  C.  40.  j  Ibid.  1.  7.  C   46. 

]  "  Non  esse  lurae  dels  securifatem  nostram,  esse  ultioncm.'" 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  479 

Atonement  and  Sacrifice,*  asserts  and  proves,  that  there  is  no 
nation  mentioned  in  history,  which  we  cannot  reproach  with 
having,  more  than  once,  made  the  blood  of  its  citizens  to 
stream  forth,  in  holy  and  pious  ceremonies,  to  appease  the 
divinity,  when  he  appeared  angry,  or  to  move  him,  when  he 
appeared  indolent. 

"  Conformably  with  this  character  of  their  gods,"  adds  the 
same  learned  prelate,  "  we  find  the  worship  of  many  of  the 
heathen  nations  to  consist  in  sufiering  and  mortification,  in 
cutting  their  flesh  with  knives,  and  scorching  their  limbs  with 
fire.  The  cruel  austerities  of  the  gymnosophists,  both  of 
Africa  and  India ;  the  dreadful  sufierings  of  the  initiated 
votaries  of  Mithra  and  Eleusis  ;  the  frantic  and  savage  rites  of 
Bellona ;  and  the  horrid  self-mutilations  of  the  worshippers  of 
Cybele, — but  too  clearly  evince  the  dreadful  views  entertained 
by  the  ancient  heathens  of  the  nature  of  their  gods." 

Undoubtedly,  then,  it  became  the  wisdom,  the  justice,  and 
the  goodness  of  the  one  true  God,  to  check  these  spreading 
and  direful  evils ;  to  bring  men  back  from  their  polytheistic 
follies  to  the  belief  and  worship  of  himself;  and  to  let  them 
know,  that  he  had  not  parted  with  the  administration  of 
providence,  nor  given  over  the  disposal  of  temporal  blessings 
to  any  subordinate  beings  whatsoever ;  so  that  health,  plenty, 
and  all  kinds  of  prosperity  were  to  be  sought  frona  him  alone, 
and  expected  as  the  sole  gift  of  his  sovereign  bounty.  And 
here  we  may  take  notice,  in  passing,  of  an  opinion  of  Origen, 
in  which  Spencer  and  others  of  the  learned  concur,  that  it  was 
a  very  wise  procedure  in  Moses  to  enforce  the  observance  of 
his  laws  by  the  hope  of  temporal  good  and  the  fear  of  temporal 
evil.  Such  hopes  and  fears  were,  if  not  a  source  of  idolatry, 
at  least  a  means  of  strengthening  it.  The  Hebrew  lawgivei 
turned  this  battery,  if  I  may  be  allowed  the  expression,  against 
the  enemy.  In  the  name  of  Jehovah,  Israel's  divine  king,  he 
promised  temporal  blessings  to  the  obedient,  and  threatened 

*  Vol.  1.  pp.  89-109. 


480  COMMENTAKIES   ON   THE 

temporal  calamities  to  the  disobedient.  Thus  the  very  thingSj 
which  before  had  been  motives  to  idolatry,  now  became 
motives  and  aids  to  true  religion.  It  may  be  said  without 
irreverence,  that  a  sort  of  necessity  was  laid  upon  the  true  God 
to  proceed  in  this  manner.  How  could  he  effectually  check 
the  propensity  to  idolatry ;  how  could  he  show,  that  he  had 
not  delegated  to  demons  the  government  of  the  world ;  how 
could  he  vindicate  his  own  incommunicable  sovereignty  and 
omnipotence,  but  by  doing,  in  realitj^,  what  the  false  gods 
pretended  to  do  ? 

Upon  the  same  principle  it  was,  I  think,  that  prophecy,  in 
the  more  restricted  sense  of  foretelling  future  events,  was  so 
much  employed  under  the  Hebrew  government.  The  ability 
to  peer  into  the  future  was  claimed  by  the  ministers  of  the 
ancient  idolatrous  worship  ;  and  the  people,  confiding  in  their 
pretensions,  consulted  them  upon  all  occasions.  To  meet 
and  overcome  the  power  of  superstition  in  that  direction,  it 
would  seem  natural,  and,  indeed,  almost  necessary,  that  the 
true  God  should  show,  by  infallible  tokens,  that  the  past,  the 
present,  and  the  future  were  all  one  to  him. 

But  the  pestilent  virus  of  idolatry  was  too  deeply  seated  to 
be  eradicated  by  such  agencies  as  these.  The  question,  then, 
naturally  arises  :  "What  just  and  rational  means  were  adequate 
to  the  suppression  of  it?  Opinions  are  not  to  be  bound  by 
legal  enactments ;  and  to  enforce  mere  theological  dogmas 
by  the  arm  of  the  civil  law,  would  be  a  gross  breach  of  civil 
liberty.  It  would  be  strange  indeed,  if  a  code,  to  which  the 
world  is  indebted  for  most  of  the  true  principles  of  civil  free- 
dom, violated  that  freedom,  in  a  fundamental  article  of  it. 
And,  in  truth,  however  certain  ignorant  or  prejudiced  writers 
may  have  represented  the  matter,  the  constitution  of  Moses 
is  chargeable  with  no  such  inconsistency. 

How,  then,  was  Moses  able  to  suppress  idolatry,  without  in- 
fringing the  principle  here  announced  ?  By  the  introduction 
of  the  theocratic  system  into  his  inspired  legislation.     "  One 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  481 

God  only  slialt  thou  serve,"  was  the  first  great  principle  of  tlie 
Plebrew  polity.  To  the  end  that  this  fundamental  truth  of 
religion  might  become  a  vital  element  of  Hebrew  thought, 
faith,  and  manners,  the  one  true  God  became  also  the  cove- 
nanted king,  the  civil  head  of  the  Hebrew  state.  Thus  to  the 
Israelite  the  Deity  was  both  a  celestial  and  a  terrestrial  so- 
vereign, his  God  and  his  king.  Viewed  as  to  a  main  design 
of  it,  then,  the  theocracy  was  a  divine  constitution,  employed 
the  more  effectually  to  supplant  idolatry,  without  a  violation 
of  that  precious  principle  of  civil  liberty,  that  mere  opinions, 
whether  theological,  ethical,  or  political,  were  not  to  be 
cramped  and  restrained  by  the  pains  and  penalties  of  the 
civil  law. 

"  The  records  of  the  Hebrew  polity,"  observes  Coleridge,* 
with  a  just  discrimination,  "  are  rendered  far  less  instructive 
as  lessons  of  political  wisdom  by  the  disposition  to  regard 
the  Jehovah  in  that  universal  and  spiritual  acceptation,  in 
which  we  use  the  word  as  christians  ;  for  relatively  to  the 
Jewish  polity  the  Jehovah  was  their  covenanted  king." 

"What,  then,  was  the  theocracy  ?  God  condescended  to 
assume  the  title  and  relation  to  the  Hebrew  people  of  chief 
civil  ruler.  He  stablished  a  civil  sovereignty  over  them. 
He  issued  his  edicts  as  a  civil  magistrate.  The  manner  in 
which  the  compact,  giving  reality  to  this  relationship,  was 
formed,  deserves  particular  notice.  It  is  detailed  in  the 
nineteenth  chapter  of  Exodus.  Moses,  acting  under  a  divine 
commission,  proposed  to  the  nation  the  question,  whether 
they  would  receive  Jehovah  for  their  king,  and  submit  to  his 
laws  ?  The  suffrage  of  the  people  appears  to  have  been  en- 
tirely free  in  this  matter.  By  their  own  voluntary  consent 
Moses  made  God  their  king.  Thus  idolatry  and  every  thing 
leading  to  idolatry  or  growing  out  of  it,  became  a  crime 
against  the  state, — became,  in  fact,  "  crimen  laesae  majes- 
tatis,"   high  treason,  or  rebellion.      As   such,  it  was  justly 

*  Manual  for  Statesmen. 
31 


4-82  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

punishable  with  death, — all  governments  agreeing  in  this, 
that  treason  is  the  highest  of  civil  crimes.  The  punishment 
of  idolatry  by  law  had,  then,  plainly,  this  capital  quality  ot 
justice,  that  it  was  punishing  the  act  of  those  who  had  chosen 
the  government  under  which  they  lived,  when  freely  pro- 
posed to  them.  Their  own  suffrages  had  made  it  a  political 
offence.  Hence  idolatry  is  called  by  the  Hebrew  writers 
"  the  trangression  of  the  covenant."  It  was  a  breach  of  the 
fundamental  compact  between  the  Hebrew  people  and  their 
chosen  king.  The  theocracy  made  religious  apostacy  a  state 
crime,  which  it  could  not  be,  without  infringing  liberty, 
under  any  other  constitution. 

It  is  a  material  consideration,  that  Moses  nowhere  deduces 
God's  right  to  give  laws  to  the  Hebrew  nation  from  his 
being  the  one  only  God,  but  from  his  having  by  miraculous 
interpositions  and  works  of  power,  laid  the  foundation  of 
their  state.  In  confirmation  of  this  view,  the  reader's  atten- 
tion is  invited  to  a  remarkable  passage  in  Deuteronomy.* 
I  give  the  passage,  as  translated  by  Michael  is  :f  "  When  thy 
son  asketh  thee  in  after  times,  whence  come  all  the  statutes 
and  laws,  which  Jehovah  thy  God  hath  given  thee  ?  thou 
Bhalt  say  to  him,  we  were  in  Egypt  slaves  to  the  king ;  but 
Jehovah,  with  a  strong  hand  brought  us  out  of  Egypt,  and 
did  before  our  eyes  great  miracles,  whereby  he  punished  the 
Egyptians,  and  Pharoah  and  his  house  ;  and  he  brought  us 
out,  to  give  us  the  land,  which  he  had  by  an  oath  promised 
to  our  fathers  :  Therefore  he  commanded  us  to  keep  all  these 
laws."  Here  the  right  of  legislating  for  the  Hebrews  is,  in 
express  terms,  grounded  on  the  favors  which  God  had  be- 
stowed upon  them,  and  not  upon  his  absolute  sovereignty  as 
creator  and  universal  lord. 

What  God  says  to  the  Israelites  in  Exod.  20:  2,  3,  is  to 
the  same  effect :  "  I  am  Jehovah,  thy  God,  which  have 
brought  thee  out  of  Egyptian  bondage;   thou  shalt  have  no 

*vi.  20-24.  +  Com.  Art.  34. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  483 

gods  before  me."  It  would  have  been  quite  consonant  with 
sound  theology  to  say  :  "  I  Jehovah  am  God  alone  ;  therefore 
thou  shalt  have  no  gods  but  me."  This  fundamental  article 
of  religion  is  taught  in  many  parts  of  the  Mosaic  writings. 
But  the  opinions  of  the  Israelites  were  not  to  be  fettered  by 
legal  enactments  ;  and  yet  idolatry  must  be  prohibited  on 
pain  of  civil  punishment.  God,  therefore,  as  Michaelis  has 
observed,  addressed  a  people  strangely  prone  to  polytheism, 
to  this  effect : — "  Lest  you  should  absurdly  suppose,  that  there 
are  many  gods,  who  can  hear  your  prayers  and  recompense 
your  oiferings,  know  that  I  alone  have  delivered  you  from 
Egyptian  tyranny  ;  have  made  you  a  people ;  and  am  the 
author  and  founder  of  your  state  :  Therefore  let  no  gods  but 
me  be  worshipped  among  you."* 

But  it  ought  never  to  be  forgotten,  that,  although  God,  by 
what  he  wrought  for  the  Israelites,  had  acquired  all  the  right 
to  be  their  sovereign,  that  any  man  could  possibly  have,  still 
he  neither  claimed  nor  exercised  that  right  in  an  arbitrary 
and  despotic  way.  Moses,  by  his  direction,  permitted  the 
people  freely  to  choose  whether  they  would  accept  Jehovah  as 
their  king,  and  obe}''  the  laws  which  he  might  give  them. 
When  they  had  formally  assented  to  this,  God  was  considered 
as  their  king,  but  not  before.  The  whole  world,  indeed,  was 
under  his  moral  rule ;  his  dominion  as  creator  embraced 
all  the  tribes  of  earth  ;  but  Israel  was  his  peculiar  property, 
whose  people  had  chosen  him  for  their  king.  The  j)assages 
of  scripture  to  this  effect  are  surprizingly  pointed  and  striking. 
The  history  of  the  election  by  the  Israelites  of  Jehovah  to  be 
the  head  of  their  state,  contained  in  the  nineteenth  chapter 
of  Exodus,  has  been  before  explained  and  commented  on  at 
length.f  Other  passages  are  no  less  remarkable.  Thus,  in 
Deut.  33  :  5,  it  is  said  "  God  was  king  in  Jeshurun,  when 
the  heads  of  the  people,  and  the  tribes  of  Israel  were  gathered 

*  Com.  Art.  33.  f  See  pp.  47,  48  of  this  vol. 


484  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

togetlier."*  This  seems  a  plain  reference  to  the  acCv  unt  in 
Exodus,  and  as  plain  an  intimation,  that  God  was  made  king 
by  the  vote  of  the  assembled  nation.  So  when  the  Israelites 
first  desired  a  man  for  a  king,  God  said  to  Samuel,  "  They 
have  not  rejected  thee,  they  have  rejected  me,  that  I  should 
not  reign  over  them."f  Again,  when  they  were  to  receive 
this  king,  the  record  is,  "  Thus  saith  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel, 
I  brought  up  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  and  delivered  you  out  of 
the  hand  of  the  Egyptians,  and  out  of  the  hand  of  all  king- 
doms, and  of  them  that  oppressed  you  ;  and  ye  have  this  day 
rejected  your  God,  who  himself  saved  you  out  of  all  your 
adversities  and  your  tribulations,  and  ye  have  said  unto  him, 
Nay,  but  set  a  king  over  us.":}; 

What  is  the  issue  ?  We  have  seen  the  monstrous  doctrines, 
pollutions,  and  crimes  of  idolatry.  We  have  seen  the  justice, 
wisdom,  and  goodness  of  the  purpose  to  put  a  stop  to  such 
dreadful  evils.  We  have  seen  the  nature  and  ground  of  God's 
claim  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  Hebrew  state.  We  have  seen, 
that  the  government  was  a  voluntary  compact  between  the 
sovereign  and  the  citizens.  We  have  seen,  that  idolatry  under 
this  constitution  was  a  state  crime,  was  in  fact  high  treason. 
We  have  seen,  that  the  whole  scope  and  hinge  of  the  Hebrew 
polity  was  the  overthrow  of  idolatry,  and  that  the  theocratic 
element  was  introduced  into  it  expressly  to  further  that  design. 
Let  the  reader  consider  and  weigh  these  things,  and,  if  he  be 

*  The  common  version  makes  Moses  king  in  Jeshurun.  But  Kennicott, 
Michaelis,  Adam  Clarke,  and  other  distinguished  Hebrew  scholars,  are  of 
the  opinion,  that  the  word  Moses  crept  into  the  text  by  mistake  of  some 
transcriber,  and  was  not  in  the  original,  as  written  by  Moses  himself.  Dr. 
Clarke,  with  his  usual  curtness  and  vigor,  pronounces  the  sense  yielded  by 
our  translation  "most  absurd."  Dr.  Kennicott's  argument  in  support  of 
the  opinion,  that  God,  and  not  Moses,  is  the  real  sulyect  of  the  prop)sition, 
is  forcible  and  conclusive ;  but  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  trouble  the 
reader  with  philological  discussions  of  that  nature.  See  Clarke  in  loc, 
Kennicott's  first  Dissertation,  and  Michaelis's  Commentaries,  Art.  24. 

t  1  Sam.  viii.  7.  J  Ibid.  x.  18,  19. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  485 

candid  aad  unbiased,  if  his  mental  vision  be  not  warped  and 
clouded  bj  prejudice,  he  will  own,  that  to  have  imposed  the 
penalty  of  death  upon  the  worship  of  false  gods  can  no  longer 
appear  in  the  light  of  inquisitorial  tj-ranny. 

It  will  be  proper  to  conclude  this  chapter  with  a  brief 
sketch  of  the  religious  and  moral  doctrines  of  Judaism.* 

There  is  one  God,  says  the  Jewish  lawgiver,  and  there  is 
none  besides  him.  He  is  the  sole  object  of  religious  trust 
and  worship.  Himself  the  supreme  being,  and  the  necessary 
source  of  all  other  beings,  there  is  no  other  that  can  be  com- 
pared with  him.  A  spirit,  pure,  immense,  infinite, — no 
material  form  can  be  a  fit  symbol  of  his  nature.  He  framed 
the  universe  by  his  power  ;  he  governs  it  by  his  wisdom ;  he 
regulates  it  by  his  providence.  Nothing  escapes  his  om- 
niscient glance ;  nothing  can  resist  his  almighty  power. 
The  good  and  evil  of  life  are  alike  dispensed  by  his  righteous 
hand. 

A  public  worship  of  this  God  is  instituted.  Ministers  to 
preside  over  it  are  appointed.  Sacrifices  and  offerings  and  a 
splendid  ceremonial  are  established.  But  all  this  pomp  is 
nothing  in  his  eyes,  unless  prompted  and  animated  by  the 
sentiments  of  the  heart.  The  worship  which  he  demands, 
before  all  and  above  all,  is  the  acknowledgement  of  our  abso- 
lute dependence  and  of  his  supreme  dominion  ;  gratitude  for 
his  benefits  ;  trust  in  his  mercy  ;  reverence  for  his  authority ; 
love  towards  his  excellence  ;  and  submission  to  his  law. 

What  purity  and  beauty  in  the  moral  doctrines  of  this 
code !  Equity,  probity,  fidelity,  industry,  compassion,  charity, 
beneficence  ; — in  a  word,  every  thing  that  makes  men  respect- 
able in  their  own  eyes,  every  thing  that  can  endear  them  to 
their  fellows,  every  thing  that   can   assure  the  repose  and 

*  See  on  this  subject  "  Lettres  de  quelques  Juifs  Allemands  et  Polonais  a 
M.  de  Voltaire."  The  valuable  substance  of  the  first  Letter  is  embodied 
in  these  closing  sentences. 


486  COMMENT AKIES    ON   THE 

happiness  of  society, — are  placed  among  the  namber  of  human 
duties. 

Where  else,  in  all  antiquitj,  are  to  be  found  ideas  of  God 
and  his  worship,  so  just  and  sublime ;  religious  institutions, 
so  pure  and  spiritual ;  ethical  doctrines,  so  conformable  to 
the  sentiments  of  nature  and  the  light  of  reason?  Recal  the 
picture,  presented  in  a  former  part  of  this  chapter,  of  the 
religious  and  moral  condition  of  the  ancient  world.  "What 
false  and  grotesque  notions  of  the  divine  nature !  What 
extravagant,  impure,  and  cruel  rites !  What  objects  of 
adoration !  From  the  heavenly  orbs  to  the  meanest  plant, 
from  the  man  distinguished  for  his  talents  or  his  crimes  to  the 
vilest  reptile, — everything  has  its  worshippers.  Here,  chasti- 
ty is  sacrificed  in  the  temples.  There,  human  blood  flows 
upon  the  altars,  and  the  dearest  victims  expire  amid  flames, 
kindled  by  superstition.  Again,  nature  is  outraged  by  beastly 
amours,  and  humanity  brutalized  by  vices  that  cannot  be 
named  without  offence.  Everywhere,  the  people  are  plunged 
into  a  frightful  ignorance,  and  the  philosophers  themselves 
grope  in  doubt  and  uncertainty. 

Wherefore  this  difference  ?  But  one  cause,  adequate  to  the 
result,  can  be  assigned.  All  the  pagan  nations  had  for  their 
guide  only  the  feeble  and  tremulous  light  of  human  reason. 
Among  the  Hebrews,  a  higher,  even  the  pure  and  eternal 
reason,  had  pierced  the  darkness,  scattered  its  shades,  and 
poured  a  divine  illumination  into  the  mind  of  prophet,  priest, 
lawgiver,  judge,  and  king.  Thus  was  the  intellect  of  the 
nation  enlightened,  and  its  heart  purified.  Thus  were  its 
manners  humanized ;  its  morals  elevated ;  its  institutions 
liberalized.  Thus  was  the  nation  educated  for  its  great  mis- 
sion of  guidance  and  of  blessing  to  all  the  nations  of  the 
eartli,  in  all  tiie  periods  of  their  history. 

The  Hebrew  government  was  a  governm.ent  of  tutelage. 
No  form  of  polity  has  ever  approached  it  in  grandeur,  purity, 
simplicity,  and  beneficence.     Had  men  been  more  perfect,  it 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  487 

would  have  stood  forever.  But  liuman  inconstancy  weaned 
even  of  a  perfect  government ;  mortal  passions  corrupted 
even  a  divine  institution  ;  and  the  commonwealth  of  Israel, 
like  the  empire  of  Rome,  at  length  fell  beneath  the  weight  of 
its  own  vices,  and  disappeared  from  the  brotherhood  of  na- 
tions. It  lives  only  in  history,  a  monument  at  once  of  the 
divine  goodness  and  equity. 


CHAPTER  III. 

General  Idea  of  the  Hebrew  Constitution. 

The  political  equality  of  the  peojDle,  without  either  nobles 
or  peasants  properly  so  called,  was,  as  we  have  seen,*  a  fun- 
damental principle  of  the  Mosaic  constitution.  This  could 
not  but  give  the  state  a  strong  democratic  tendency.  Nor  ia 
it  matter  of  surprize,  that  on  this  foundation  Moses  establish- 
ed a  commonwealth,  rather  than  a  monarchy.f  On  this 
point,  there  is  scarcely  a  dissenting  voice  among  all  the 
learned  men,  who  have  written  upon  these  institutions.  Mr. 
Ilorneij:  does  but  echo  the  general  opinion,  when  he  says, 
that  "  the  form  of  the  Hebrew  republic  was  unquestionably 
democratical." 

Moses  did  not,  indeed,  by  an  unchangeable  law,  enact,  that 
no  alteration  should  ever  be  made  in  the  form  of  govern- 
ment. On  the  contrary,  his  prophetic  eye  foresaw,  that  the 
time  would  come,  when  his  countrymen,  infected  and  dazzled 

*  Bk.  2,  c.  1,  p.  400.  t  Mich.  Com.  on  the  Laws  of  Moses. 

X  Introduction,  vol.  2,  Pt.  2,  c.  I. 


488  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

by  the  example  of  the  surrounding  nations,  would  lose  their 
relish  for  republican  simplicity,  and  would  demand  the  splen- 
dors of  a  throne  and  a  court.  But  it  was  not  his  wish,  thac 
they  should  have  a  king.  Upon  this  point  he  reasoned  ;  he 
dissuaded  ;  he  expostulated  ;  he  warned.  The  spirit  of  his 
law  was  strongly  against  monarchy  ;  and  all,  who  afterwards 
maintained  that  spirit,  were  equally  strong  against  it.  This 
was  the  case  with  Gideon,  who  indignantly  rejected  the  offer 
of  a  crown.  This  was  the  case  with  Samuel,  that  model  of  a 
popular  magistrate.  He  remonstrated,  solemnly  and  elo- 
quently, with  the  people,  against  their  rash  determination  to 
have  a  king.  He  told  them,  that  they  were  fastening  upon 
themselves  an  oriental  despotism  ;  that  their  kings  would 
rule  them  with  a  rod  of  iron  :  and  that  they  would  repent  of 
their  rashness,  when  it  was  too  late.  The  truth  is,  that  all 
who  followed  the  maxims  of  the  founder  of  the  state,  set 
their  faces  against  usurpation,  and  maintained  the  rights  of 
the  people  at  all  hazards,  and  in  the  most  disastrous  times.* 

Foreseeing,  however,  that  all  his  admonitions  would,  in  the 
end,  prove  unavailing,  Moses  enacted  a  fundamental  law  to 
define  and  limit  the  power  of  the  future  kings.  This  law  is 
found  in  the  17th  chapter  of  Deuteronomy.  Despotism 
seems  to  be  the  native  growth  of  the  east.  Man  there, 
cradled  in  servitude,  becomes  fitted  to  listen  to  his  fate,  in 
the  mandates  of  a  tyrant.  The  climate  dissolves  the  energy 
of  the  heart,  and  hence  the  people  of  the  east  have  alwaj^s 
been  mere  children  in  respect  of  political  institutions.  Indo- 
lence loves  to  gaze,  and  hence  they  have  ever  been  delighted 
with  the  trappings  of  royalty,  and  have  been  prone  to  look 
on  an  earthly  king  with  a  veneration  approaching  to  idolatry. 
The  pomp  of  their  sovereign  feeds  their  vanity  ;  his  power  is 
their  pride.  They  have  no  notion  of  popular  freedom. 
Hence  a  chief  magistrate,  subject  to  the  laws  of  his  people, 
a  constitutional  king,   is  a  conception,  foreign  to  all    their 

*  Chr.  Exam,  for  Sept.  1836. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  489 

habits  of  thought  and  feeling.  In  Egypt,  Moses  jad  witness- 
ed the  abuse  of  the  regal  power ;  in  the  wilderness,  he  had 
observed  the  tyranny  of  the  petty  despots  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Israel.  Hence  the  enactment  of  the  law  referred  to 
above.  The  particular  provisions  of  this  law  will  be  ex 
amined  in  another  chapter.  I  will  only  observe  now,  in 
passing,  that  they  were  such  as  to  insure,  whenever  the  anti- 
cipated change  in  the  form  of  polity  should  take  place,  the 
existence  of  a  constitutional  monarchy.  The  king,  permitted 
by  Moses  to  the  folly  of  his  countrymen,  was,  in  truth,  what 
a  late  monarch  in  France*  claimed  to  be,  a  "  citizen  king  ;" 
a  popular  magistrate,  rather  than  an  arbitrary  sovereign.  If 
the  Hebrew  statesman  could  not  wholly  resist  the  proclivity 
of  his  nation  to  the  regal  form  of  government,  he  at  least, 
with  prescient  wisdom,  limited  the  power  intrusted  to  the 
hands  of  royalty.  In  this  he  shows  how  thoroughly  his  own 
spirit  was  impregnated  with  democratic  principles,  how  deep 
was  his  hatred  of  tyranny,  and  how  ardent  and  irrepressible 
his  sympathy  for  the  rights,  the  liberty,  and  the  happiness  of 
man.f 

Considerable  difference  of  opinion  exists  among  the  learned 
in  i-egard  to  the  number  and  nature  of  the  departments  of  the 
Hebrew  government,  and  the  officers  by  whom  the  adminis- 
tration of  public  affairs  was  conducted.  The  mixture  of  civil 
and  military  authority,  which  marks  this  constitution,  the 
blending  of  the  legislative  and  judicial  functions  in  the  same 
assembly,  the  union  of  various  and,  according  to  our  way  of 
thinking,  somewhat  incongruous  powers  in  the  priesthood, 
the  apparent  chasms:]:  in  the  Mosaic  legislation  arising  from 
the  frequent  retention  by  Moses  of  ancient  consuetudinary 

*  Louis  Philippe. 

f  See  on  this  subject  D'Israeli's  Genius  of  Judaism,  c.  4. 

J  I  say  "  apparent  chaemi?,"  because  what  are  chasms  to  us  were  not  so 
to  the  Israelites,  being  supplied  by  a  then  well  known  law  of  usage ;  a 
'  lex  non  scriptu,"  corresponding  to  the  common  law  among  us. 


490  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

laws,  Without  any  formal  introduction  of  tliem  into  the  body 
of  his  own  Laws,  and  the  extreme  brevity  of  the  history  of 
the  Israelitish  state,  as  contained  in  the  sacred  books,  are  the 
causes  of  that  obscurity,  which  has  operated  to  produce  this 
diversity  of  opinion.  As  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  satisfy 
my  own  mind,  the  following  statement  embodies  the  radical 
features  of  this  ancient  and  venerable  polity.* 

Each  of  the  Israelitish  tribes  formed  a  separate  state,  hav 
ing  a  local  legislature  and  a  distinct  administration  of  justice. 
The  power  of  the  several  states  was  sovereign  within  the 
limits  of  their  reserved  rights.  Still,  there  was  both  a  real 
and  a  vigorous  general  government.  The  nation  might  have 
been  styled  the  united  tribes,  provinces,  or  states  of  Israel. 
The  bond  of  political  union  between  the  sovereign  states 
appeal's  to  have  been  fourfold.  In  other  words,  there  were 
four  departments  of  the  Hebrew  government :  viz.  the  chief 
magistrate,  whether  judge,  high  priest,  or  king ;  the  senate  of 
princes ;  the  congregation  of  Israel,  the  popular  branch  of 
the  government ;  and  the  oracle  of  Jehovah,  a  most  interest- 
ing and  singular  part  of  the  political  structure.  The  form  of 
a  legal  enactment  might  have  run  somewhat  after  this  fa- 
shion : — "  Be  it  enacted  by  the  senate  and  congregation  of 
Israel,  the  judge  approving,  and  the  oracle  concurring." 
There  was  a  judiciary  system,  in  which  causes  of  a  sufficient 
magnitude  could  be  carried  up,  through  courts  of  various 
grades,  till  they  came,  for  final  adjudication,  before  a  su- 
preme national  court,  which  held  its  session  in  the  capital  of 
the  nation.  Finally,  on  the  one  hand,  the  organization  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi  gave  vitality  to  the  whole  system,  acted  as  a 
counterpoise  to  the  democracy,  and  restrained  its  excesses, 
while,  on  the  other,  the  prophetical  order  maintained  the 
righto  of  the  people,  and  formed  a  powerful  barrier  against 
the  encroachments  of  arbitrary  power.f 

*  Lowman  on  the  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  C.  8. 

f  I  do  Pot  here  cite  the  particular  Scriptures  in  support  of  these  views, 


LAWS    OF   THE   AIJCIENT   HEBREWS.  491 

A  knowledge  of  the  polity  of  the  Hebrews  prior  to  the 
time  of  Moses  will  help  us  in  understanding  his  constitution, 
since  he  retained  in  it  many  of  the  ancient  laws  and  insti- 
tutions, sometimes  unaltered,  sometimes  sliglitly  modified. 
The  simplicity  of  ancient  manners  rendered  complicated 
methods  of  government  unnecessar3^  The  form  actually 
employed  by  most  nations  in  the  earliest  times,  appears  to 
have  been  patriarchal.  To  this  rule  the  Hebrew  polity  does 
not  form  an  exception.  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  governed 
their  families  with  an  authority  well  nigh  unlimited.  Their 
power  over  their  households  was  little  short  of  a  sovereign 
dominion.  Tliey  were  independent  princes.  They  acknow- 
ledged no  subjection,  and  owed  no  allegiance,  to  any  so- 
vereign. They  formed  alliances  with  other  princes.*  They 
treated  with  kings  on  a  footing  of  equality.f  They  main- 
tained a  body  of  servants,  trained  to  the  use  of  arms  ;  were 
the  chiefs,  who  led  them  in  war ;  and  repelled  force  by  force.:}: 
They  were  the  priests,  who  appointed  festivals,  and  offered 
sacrifices.  §  They  had  the  power  of  disinheriting  their 
children,!  of  sending  them  away  from  home  without  assign- 
ing any  reason,^  and  even  of  punishing  them  capitally.** 

The  twelve  sons  of  Jacob  ruled  their  respective  families 
with  the  same  authority.  But  when  their  descendants  had 
become  numerous  enough  to  form  tribes,  each  tribe  acknow- 
ledged a  prince  as  its  ruler.ff  This  ofiSce,  it  is  likely,  was  at 
first  hereditary  in  the  eldest  son,  but  afterwards  became 
elective.  When  the  tribes  increased  to  such  an  extent,  as  to 
embrace  a  great  number  of  separate  households,  the  less 
powerful  ones  united  with  their  stronger  relatives,    and  ac- 

since  the  passages  on  which  they  rest  will  be  often  referred  to  in  the  sub- 
sequent detail  of  the  Hebrew  institutions. 

*  Gen.  xxi.  22-32.  f  Gen.  xiv.  24.  xsxiv.  6-19. 

X  Gen.  xiv.  13-16.  §  Gen.  viii.  20.  xxii.  13.    Job  i.  5 

II  Gen.  xlix.  3,  4.    1  Chron.  v.  1  1[  Gen.  xxi.  14. 

**  Gen.  xxxviii.  24.  tt^'umb.  1. 


492  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

knowledged  them  as  their  superiors.  In  this  way,  there 
arose  a  subdivision  of  the  tribes  into  collections  of  house- 
holds. Such  a  collection  was  technically  called  a  family,  a 
clan,  a  house  of  fathers,  or  a  thousand.*  This  last  appel- 
lation was  not  given,  because  each  of  these  subdivisions  con- 
tained just  a  thousand  persons,  or  a  thousand  households  ;  for, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  the  number  must  have  varied,  and 
in  point  of  fact,  it  is  manifest  from  the  history,  that  it  did. 
As  the  tribes  had  their  princes,  so  these  clans,  families,  or 
thousands  had  their  res]3ective  chiefs,  who  were  called  heads 
of  houses  of  fathers,  heads  of  thousands,  and  sometimes 
simply  heads. f  Harrington  denominates  these  two  classes  of 
officers  phylarchs,  or  governors  of  tribes,  and  jjatriarchs,  or 
governors  of  families.  Both,  while  the  Israelites  were  yet 
in  Egypt,  were  comprehended  under  the  general  name  of 
elders.:}:  Whether  this  name  was  a  title  of  honor,  like  that 
of  sheik  (the  aged)  among  the  Arabs,  and  that  of  senator 
among  the  ancient  Romans,  or  whether  it  is  to  be  understood, 
according  to  its  etymology,  as  denoting  persons  actually  ad- 
vanced in  3'ears,  is  uncertain  ;  probably,  however,  the  former 
is  the  true  sense  of  the  term.  These  princes  of  tribes  and 
heads  of  thousands,  the  elders  of  Israel,  were  the  rulers  of 
the  people,  while  they  remained  still  subject  to  the  power  of 
the  Pharoahs,  and  constituted  a  kind  of  "  imperium  in 
imperio."  Of  course  they  had  no  written  constitution,  nor 
any  very  formal  code  of  laws,  but  governed  by  custom, 
reason,  and  the  principles  of  natural  justice.  Thej'  watched 
over  and  provided  for  the  general  good  of  the  community, 
while  the  affairs  of  each  individual  household  continued 
under  the  control  of  its  own  father.  For  the  most  part,  it 
may   be  supposed,  only   those  cases,  which   concerned  the 

*  Judges,  vi.  15.     1  Sam.  x.  19-21.  sxiii.  23.     Numb.  xxvi.  5-50. 
f  Numb.  xvii.  3.  xxv  15.     Joshua  xxii.  14.  xxiii.  2. 
i  Exod.  iii.  16.  iv.  29 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  493 

fathers  of  families  themselves  would  come  under  the  cog- 
nizance and  jurisdiction  of  the  elders. 

Such  was  the  patriarchal  form  of  government.  It  was 
found  among  all  the  branches  of  Abraham's  posterity ; — 
Ishmaelites,  Edomites,  and  Israelites  alike.  Each  of  these, 
like  the  ancient  Germans,  the  Homan  gentes,  and  the  Scottish 
clans,  kept  together  in  a  body,  according  to  their  tribes  and 
families.  Every  tribe  formed  a  little  commonwealth,  having 
its  own  particular  interests  ;  while  all  united  became  a  great 
republic,  with  a  common  weal.  Thus  we  find  the  Ishmaelites 
governed  by  twelve  princes,  according  to  the  number  of  Ish- 
mael's  sons.*  Their  descendants,  the  Beduin  Arabs,  have 
preserved  the  patriarchal  polity  to  this  day.  They  call  their 
princes  emirs,  and  their  heads  of  clans  sheiks,^elders, — 
under  which  latter  designation,  the  Hebrews  included  both 
these  orders  of  rulers.  In  like  manner,  the  Edomites  had 
what  the  sacred  historian  calls  kings,  but  under  them,  again, 
stood  a  multitude  of  chiefs,  styled  princes,  who  ruled  over  so 
many  clans. f  The  same  arrangement  took  place  among  the 
Israelites.  That  there  were  twelve  great  tribes  is  known  to 
all.  That  the  tribes  were  governed,  each  by  its  own  prince, 
that  they  were  subdivided  into  clans,  or  groups  of  related 
families,  having  also  their  respective  chiefs,  and  that  these 
princes  of  tribes  and  chiefs  of  clans  received  the  common 
appellation  of  "  elders  of  Israel,"  will  be  evident  to  any  one, 
who  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  the  first  chapter  of 
Numbers  with  Exod.  3  :  16,  4  :  29,  and  6  :  14,  15. 

Another  order  of  officers,  who,  in  the  end,  came  to  possess 
great  dignity  and  power,  likewise  sprang  up  among  the  He- 
brews, while  yet  in  Egypt.  These  were  the  shoterim,  in  our 
version  rendered  "  officers."  That  they  were  different  from 
the  judges  is  certain,  since  Moses  ordained,  that,  when  the 
Israelites  came  into  the  promised  land,  they  should  appoint 

*  Gen.  XXV.  16.  f  Gcd.  xxxvi. 


494  COMMENT AEEES   ON   THE 

both  judges  and  slioterim  in  every  city.*  What  the  duties 
of  these  functionaries  were,  there  is  not  much  difficulty  in 
determining.  The  emirs  among  the  Arabians,  a  people  very 
nearly  related  to  the  Hebrews,  and  retaining  many  of  the 
ancient  customs  common  to  all  the  descendants  of  Abraham, 
have  their  secretaries,  a  class  of  officers  evidently  very  simi- 
lar to  the  Israelitish  shoterim.  The  most  important  business 
of  the  shoterim  was  to  keep  the  genealogical  registers  ;  to 
record  accurately  the  marriages,  births,  and  deaths  among  the 
people ;  and  probably,  as  they  kept  the  rolls  of  families,  to 
apportion  the  public  burdens  and  services  on  the  people 
individually.  Modern  governments,  indeed,  have  no  office 
exactly  corresponding  to  this,  because  they  do  not  regulate 
their  affiiirs  in  this  genealogical  manner ;  they  do  not  take 
the  census  of  the  people  by  families.  But  among  a  people 
like  the  Israelites,  whose  ideas  were  altogether  clannish,  a 
people,  with  whom  all  hereditary  succession  and  all  posthu- 
mous fame  depended  on  genealogical  descent,  this  must  have 
been  an  office  at  least  as  important  as  that  of  a  judge.  The 
proof  that  this  office  existed  in  Egypt,  is  clear  and  certain  ; 
for  the  Hebrew  shoterim  w^ere  employed,  under  the  direction 
of  Hebrew  overseers,  to  apportion  and  press  forward  the 
labors,  exacted  from  the  people.f  It  is  likely,  that  originally 
the  princes  of  tribes  and  chiefs  of  families  performed  the 
duties  of  genealogists,  but  that  afterwards,  to  ease  themselves, 
they  employed  secretaries  to  do  the  work  for  them,  who  came 
at  length  to  constitute  a  distinct  order  of  magistrates,  under 
the  name  of  shoterim.:}: 

*  Deut.  xvi.  18.  "Judges  and  officers  (shoterim)  shalt  thou  make  thee 
in  all  thy  gates." 

t  Exod.  V.  6,  10,  14,  15. 

X  See  on  this  subject,  MIchaelis's  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses, 
Arts.  46-51 ;  Jahn's  Hebrew  Commonwealth,  B.  2.  Sect.  8;  Lowman  on 
the  Civil  Government  of  the  Hebrews,  c.  5  ;  Lewis's  Antiquities  of  the 
Hebrew  RcpubliCj  B.  1.  C.  4;  Harrington's  Commonwealth  of  Israel,  chapa. 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  495 

Such  was  the  politj,  whicli  Moses  found  established  among 
his  countrymen,  when  he  returned  to  Egypt,  after  a  forty 
years'  residence  in  Midian.  The  time  had  now  come,  when, 
agreeably  to  the  divine  purpose,  the  chosen  people  were  to 
be  delivered  out  of  the  hand  of  their  oppressors,  and  put  in 
possession  of  the  land  of  promise.  They  were  no  longer  to 
pursue  the  nomadic  life  of  their  ancestors,  but  were  to  be 
settled,  as  an  agricultural  people,  in  fixed  habitations.  As  a 
nation,  they  were  designed  to  answer  very  important  purpo- 
ses in  the  divine  plan.  It  was,  therefore,  necessary,  that  they 
should  receive  new  political  institutions,  suited  to  their  new 
circumstances  and  high  destination.  To  this  end  Moses  led 
them  to  the  foot  of  Sinai,  where  the  tribes  freely  elected 
Jehovah  to  be  their  king,  a  solemn  compact  was  formed  be- 
tween the  sovereign  and  the  people,  and  the  civil  constitution 
was  settled  upon  this  foundation.*  Thus  Jehovah,  in  accor- 
dance with  the  prevalent  notion  of  those  ages,  condescended 
to  be  the  national  and  tutelar  deity  of  the  Hebrews  ;  his 
worship  was  made  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state ;  and 
idolatry  became  a  political  crime. 

But  t;ie  theocratic  element  in  this  constitution  did  not 
make  a  fourth  form  of  government,  in  addition  to  the  three 
forms,  with  which  the  world  is  familiar.  It  was  not  a  politi- 
cal constitution,  fundamentally  different  from  the  monarchi- 
cal, aristocratical,  democratical,  and  mixed  forms  of  polity. f 
Warburton:}:  has  shown,  that  the  theocracy  continued  to  the 
coming  of  Christ.  But  during  the  period  intervening  be- 
tween the  establishment  of  the  constitution  by  Moses  and 
the  birth  of  the  Messiah,  the  government  underwent  many 

1,  2 ;  Salvador's  Histoire  des  Institutions  de  Moise  et  du  Teuple  Hebreu, 
B.  2.  C.  2 ;  and  Home's  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  vol,  2,  Pt.  2,  c.  1 

*  Ex.  19.     Jahn-s  Heb.  Com.  B.  2,  S.  8. 

t  Mich.  Com.  Art.  35.  %  Div.  Leg.  B.  5,  S.  3. 


4c9d  COMMENTAEIES   ON   THE 

changes,  and  assumed  a  variety  of  forms.  It  was  democrati- 
cal  till  the  time  of  Saul,  monarchical  from  his  accession  to 
the  throne  till  the  captivity,  and  aristocratical  after  the  resto- 
ration of  the  Jews  to  their  own  country ;  but  through  all 
these  revolutions  it  retained  the  theocratic  feature.  We 
may,  therefore,  proceed  in  our  study  of  this  constitution,  and 
in  the  attempt  to  present  a  true  analysis  of  it,  just  as  we 
would  perform  a  similar  labor  in  reference  to  the  constitution 
of  Rome,  or  of  England. 

The  patriarchal  polity,  of  which  a  brief  sketch  is  given 
abfive,  Moses  retained  unaltered.  The  subdivision  of  tribes 
into  collections  of  families  remained  as  it  had  been  before. 
At  the  time  of  the  exodus,  the  larger  clans  of  this  sort,  exclu- 
sive of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  amounted  to  fifty-eight,  and  their 
chiefs,  in  conjunction  with  the  twelve  princes  of  tribes, 
formed  a  council  of  state,  consisting  of  seventy  members.* 
It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  principle  of  subdivision  was 
carried  much  farther  than  a  perusal  of  the  twenty-sixth  chap- 
ter of  Numbers  would  at  first  lead  us  to  suppose.  There 
must  have  been  a  division,  not  noticed  by  the  historian,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  collections  of  families  were  far  more 
numerous,  and  of  course  the  number  of  heads  of  families  far 
greater,  for  no  less  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  chiefs  of  this 
rank  joined  the  rebellion  of  Korah.f  The  princes  of  tribes 
and  chiefs  of  families  were  the  natural  representatives  of  the 
people  and  magistrates  of  the  state.:}:  They  commanded 
their  respective  tribes  in  war,  and  guided  their  counsels  in 
peace.  They  appear  to  be  alluded  to  in  the  song  of  Deborah 
as  those  who  "  ride  on  white  asses  and  sit  in  judgment ;"  a 
passage  in  which,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  there  is  a  reference 
to  this  union  in  their  persons  of  civil  and  military  authority. 
Whether  these  officers  were  elective  or  hereditary  seems 
hard  to  determine.     IIarrington§  considers  them  hereditary. 

*  Numb.  xxvi.     Exod.  xxiv.  1.  f  Numb.  xvi.  2. 

t  Jahn's  Heb.  Com.  B.  2,  S.  11.  §  Com.  Is.  C.  2. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  497 

Jahn*  inclines  to  regard  them  as  elective.  Lownianf  doubts. 
Michaelis:}:  can  find  no  trace  of  the  manner  in  which  they 
were  chosen.  I  rather  think  that  Jahn  is  right.  At  least  it 
is  certain,  that  the  ofiice  was  not  strictly  hereditary  in  the 
first-born  of  the  tribe  or  the  family.  This  is  plain  from  the 
case  of  Nahshon.  Though  he  was  prince  of  Judah,  he  was 
not  the  heir-male  of  the  tribe.  lie  was  the  son  of  Aminadab, 
the  son  of  Kam,  M'ho  was  a  younger  son  of  Hezron,  the  son 
of  Pharez,  himself  a  younger  son  of  Judah,  the  original 
patriarch  of  the  tribe.§  This  certainly  is  not  a  proof  that  the 
office  was  elective,  but  it  looks  that  way ;  and  the  analogy  of 
other  ofiices  in  the  Hebrew  government  strengthens  the  pro- 
bability. 

Another  order  of  functionaries,  retained  by  Mojes,  was 
that  of  the  shoterim,  translated  in  our  bible  "  officers."  In 
Num.  11  :  16,  and  Deut.  29  :  10,  they  are  named  in  connec- 
tion with  the  elders,  that  is,  the  princes  of  tribes  and  heads 
of  families.  They  were,  therefore,  magistrates  and  represen- 
tatives of  the  people.  However  obscure  and  uninfluential 
their  office  might  have  been  originally,  it  gradually  acquired 
importance,  till  it  came  at  length  to  be  one  of  great  dignity 
and  authority.  We  have  seen  before,  that  they  were  the 
keepers  of  the  genealogical  tables.  In  Egypt,  they  were 
charged  with  seeing,  that  every  Israelite  delivered  the  requir- 
ed number  of  bricks.  |  It  was  their  business  to  give  their 
discharge  to  citizens,  who  were  by  law  exempt  from  military 
duty.T  Another  function  appertaining  to  them  was  to  com- 
municate to  the  people  the  orders  of  the  general  respecting 
military  afi^airs.**  From  the  shoterim  and  elders  together,  as 
being  persons  of  the  highest  respectability,  the  supreme 
senate  of  seventy  was  to  be  chosen.f  f     "We  find  them  repeat- 

*  Heb.  Com.  B.  2,  S.  11.  f  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  C.  5. 

X  Com.  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  46.  g  1  Chron.  ii. 

II  Exod.  V.  10  seqq.  f  Deut,  xx.  5-9.       **  Josh.  i.  10. 

f  f  Numb.  xi.  16. 

32 


498  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

edly  mentioned  as  forming  a  part  of  the  legislative  assemblies 
of  the  nation.*  And  in  the  time  of  the  kings,  we  find  the 
chief  shoter,  though  not  a  military  commander,  exercising  a 
general  superintendence  and  control  over  the  whole  armj.f 
When  the  nation  was  settled  in  Palestine,  the  shoterim  were 
distributed  into  every  city,  and  performed  the  duties  of  their 
office  for  the  city  and  its  surrounding  district.:}:  They  could 
not  properly  discharge  their  functions  without  having  accu- 
rate catalogues  of  the  names  of  the  Hebrews,  with  a  record 
of  the  age,  pecuniary  ability,  and  domestic  circumstances  of 
each  individual  master  of  a  household.  There  appears  evi- 
dently to  have  been  a  chief  genealogist,  who  was  the  president 
of  the  w^hole  order,  and  exercised  a  general  superintendence 
over  the  affairs  entrusted  to  them.  Several  of  these  chiefs 
are  mentioned  by  name  under  the  kings. §  In  1  Chron.  24  : 
6,  and  Jer.  52  :  25,  mention  is  made  of  a  "  principal  scribe 
of  the  host,"  that  is,  a  chief  shoter,  "  who  mustered  the  peo- 
ple of  the  land"  for  war.  How  the  shoterim  were  chosen 
the  history  does  not  distinctly  inform  us.  There  is  little  diffi- 
culty, however,  in  gathering  from  what  it  does  say  concern- 
ing them,  that  the  office  was  elective.  While  the  Hebrews 
dwelt  in  Egypt,  and  before  the  Levites  had  been  set  apart 
from  the  other  tribes,  and  consecrated  to  letters  and  religion, 
they  must  either  have  been  selected  out  of  every  clan,  or, 
more  probably  perhaps,  chosen  from  the  whole  tribe,  irre- 
spective of  families,  according  to  the  opinion  entertained  of 
their  fitness  for  the  office.  After  the  Levites  had  become 
fairly  installed  in  their  office,  as  the  learned  class,  the  gene- 
alogists were  generally  taken  from  among  them.]]  "This  was 
a  very  rational  procedure,  as  the  Levites  devoted  themselves 

^  Deut.  sxix.  10.  xxxi.  28.  Josh.  viii.  3.  xxiii.  2. 
t  2  Chron.  xxvi.  11.  J  Deut.  xvi.  18. 

§  2  Sam.  viii.  17.  xx.  25.    2  Kings  xxv.  19.    1  Chron.  xxiv.  6.    2  Chron. 
xxvi.  11.    Jer.  Hi.  25. 

II  1  Chron.  xxiii.  4.    2  Chron.  xix.  11.    xxxi  v.  13. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  499 

particularly  to  study ;  and,  among  husbandmen  and  unlearn- 
ed people,  few  were  likely  to  be  so  expert  at  writing,  as  to  be 
entrusted  with  the  keeping  of  registers  so  important."* 

The  magistracies,  thus  far  noticed,  formed  a  part  of  the 
polity  of  the  Hebrews,  before  the  exodus  from  Egypt.  But, 
by  the  advice  of  Jethro,  which  was  confirmed  by  their  king 
Jehovah,  Moses  instituted  a  new  order  of  rulers,  which  must 
now  be  explained. f  Although  in  Egypt  th«  Hebrews  had  a 
sort  of  political  government  among  themselves,  yet  it  is  not 
to  be  supposed,  that  they  would  be  permitted  to  hold  regular 
courts  for  the  trial  of  civil  causes.  Hence  they  had  no  judges 
in  their  bondage,  being  subject  to  Egyptian  magistrates  in 
that  capacity.  On  their  leaving  Egypt,  Moses  took  the  whole 
judicature  upon  himself,  and  was  for  some  time  sole  judge. 
But  this  was  too  much  for  mortal  strength,  and,  from  the  little 
attention  that  could  be  given  to  each  individual  case,  not 
altogether  consistent  with  the  public  interest.  His  father-in- 
law,  who  appears  to  have  been  a  man  of  great  judgment  and 
wisdom,  convinced  him  of  this,  and  by  his  advice  he  insti- 
tuted judges.  The  principle,  on  which  he  arranged  the  insti- 
tution, was  a  remarkable  one,  and  must  have  been  suggested 
by  the  military  divisions  of  the  people.  He  appointed  judges 
for  thousands,  hundreds,  fifties,  and  tens  ;  in  all  about  seventy- 
eight  thousand  six  hundred.:]:  There  was  a  regular  gradation 
of  rank  among  these  judges,  and,  in  all  probability,  such  a 
subordination  of  the  inferior  to  the  superior,  that  the  cases 
which  the  judges  of  tens  found  too  hard  for  them,  they 
referred  to  the  judges  of  fifties  ;  in  the  same  manner,  the  cases 
which  these  latter  found  too  difficult  to  decide,  they  passed 
over  to  the  judges  of  hundreds  ;  questions  too  intricate  or  too 
important  in  the  opinion  of  the  judges  of  hundreds  for  their 
determination,  they  carried  up  to  the  judges  of  thousands ; 

*  See  on  the  ofBce  of  the  shoterim  Mich.  Com.  Art.  51.  and  Jahn's  Heb. 
Com.  B.  2,  S.  11. 

f  Exod.  xviii.  J  Exod.  xviii.  25. 


'600  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

wbo,  in  their  turn,  referred  difficulties  too  great  for  their  reso- 
lution to  Moses,  or,  after  his  death,  to  the  supreme  judicial 
authority,  in  whouisoever  lodged.  The  principle  of  this  judi- 
ciary system  was,  that  the  administration  of  justice  should  be 
brought  to  every  man's  door,  and  of  course  that  it  should  be 
prompt  and  cheap;  notwithstanding  which,  care  was  taken 
to  avoid  the  evils  of  hasty  and  partial  decisions,  by  the  right 
of  appeal  to  tribunals  of  a  higher  grade,  when  the  case  was 
of  suiScient  magnitude  to  warrant  such  a  resort.  This  prin- 
ciple was  retained  in  the  judicial  system  of  the  nation,  after 
its  settlement  in  Palestine.  But  the  system  itself  necessarily 
underwent  some  modifications.  It  could  not  remain  exactly 
as  it  was ;  for  the  people  no  longer  lived  together,  as  in  the 
wilderness.  On  their  taking  possession  of  the  promised  land, 
judges,  as  well  as  shoterim,  or  genealogists,  were  to  be  ap- 
pointed in  every  city,*  who  were  to  discharge  the  duties  of 
their  respective  offices  for  the  city  and  the  surrounding  dis- 
trict. Yet  even  the  plan  proper  for  Israel  as  an  army  march- 
ing was  not  altogether  unsuited  to  their  settlement  in  perma- 
nent habitations,  as  tribes  and  families.  The  military  division 
might  have  its  counterpart  in  a  civil  division  into  counties, 
centuries,  and  decuries.  The  old  Saxon  constitution  of  sheriffs 
in  counties,  hundreders  or  centgraves,  in  hundreds,  and  deci- 
ners  in  decennaries,  was  formed  upon  this  model.  Lord 
Baconf  is  of  the  opinion,  that  king  Alfred  took  this  frame  of 
government  from  the  laws  of  Moses.  Whether  the  judges 
were  to  be  natives  of  their  respective  cities,  or  even  of  the 
tribe  in  whose  territory  the  cities  were  situated,  or  whether 
the  fittest  persons  were  to  be  chosen,  without  regard  to  tribe, 
family,  or  residence,  does  not  appear  from  the  history.  The 
latter  supposition  is  rendered  probable  by  the  fact,  that  in 
after  times  the  office  was  very  generally  filled  by  Levites.:}: 

*  Deut.  xvi.  18. 

t  On  Eng.  Gov.  P.  1.  p.  70.  cited  by  Lowm.  on  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  C.  9. 

t  1  Chron.  xxiii.  4  :  xxvi.  29-32.     2  Chron.  xix.  8-11. 


lAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREAVS.  501 

This  might,  not  improbably,  have  been  the  intention  of  IVIoses, 
which  he  did  not  seek  to  render  eftective  by  any  legal  enact- 
ment, as  foreseeing,  that  the  thing  would  happen  naturally, 
since  the  Levites,  devoted  to  learning  by  the  very  constitution 
of  their  tribe,  would  best  understand  the  laws  of  the  land. 
Besides,  it  is  quite  conformable  to  the  ideas  of  those  times, 
and  not  foreign  to  the  notions  and  manners  of  the  east  in  all 
ages,  that  the  judicial  and  sacerdotal  offices  should  be  united 
in  the  same  persons.  Among  the  ancient  Egyptians,  the 
priests  were  the  usual  administrators  of  justice.*  The  Arabs 
resorted  to  the  temples  and  the  priests  for  justice.  Before  the 
time  of  Mahomet,  they  even  carried  on  law-suits  before  their 
gods.  This  he  j)rohibited  ;f  but  to  this  day,  the  seat  of  just- 
ice is  commonly  called  by  the  Arabs  God's  tribunal ;  and  the 
usual  form  of  citation  is,  "Thou  art  invited  to  the  tribunal 
of  God.":}: 

The  chief  function  of  the  Israelitish  judges  was  to  admin- 
ister justice  between  man  and  man.§  It  is  possible,  and, 
looking  to  the  general  spirit  and  frame  of  the  Hebrew 
constitution,  not  improbable,  that  they  united  some  degree  of 
military  power  to  their  civil  authority.  They  are  mentioned 
as  among  the  persons  summoned  by  Joshua  to  the  legislative 
assemblies. II  It  is  hardly  probable,  however,  that  the  seventy 
two  thousand  judges  of  tens  and  fifties  had  seats  and  voices 
in  these  diets.  It  is  more  likely,  that  only  those  of  hundreds 
and  thousands,  perhaps  even  only  the  latter  of  tliese  classes, 
are  to  be  understood,  when  judges  are  mentioned  as  constitu- 
ting a  part  of  the  public  deliberative  assemblies  of  the 
Hebrews.^ 

*  Jablonski's  Pantheon,  p.  102  of  the  Prolegomena,  cited  by  IMich. 
Art.  49. 

f  Koran,  Sura  iv.  Cl-64  and  v.  46-55. 

X  Arvieux's  Travels  through  Palestine  in  Mich.  Com.  Art.  49. 

g  Deut.  xvi.  18.  |]  Josh,  sxiii.  2,  xxiv.  1. 

^  On  the  subject  of  the  Heb.  Judges  see  Mich.  Com.  Art.  49  j  Jahn's 


502  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

The  judicial  office  among  the  Hebrews  was  elective. 
Josephus  says  so  expressly,  though  with  hardly  greater  plain- 
ness than  Moses.  "  Take  you  wise  men,  and  understanding, 
and  known  among  your  tribes,  and  I  will  make  them  rulers 
over  you,"*  were  the  lawgiver's  words  to  his  countrymen, 
when  he  instituted  the  office.  The  only  function  which  he 
here  claims  for  himself,  is  that  of  commissioning  those  whom 
the  people  should  elect.  Even,  the  supreme  judge  was  chosen 
by  the  free  suffi-ages  of  the  people.  The  historian  distinctly 
informs  us,  that  "  the  people  made  Jephthah  head  and  captain 
over  them."f  Four  stages  may  be  noted  in  the  proceedings 
relating  to  Jephthah  ; — the  preliminary  discussion,  the  nomi- 
nation, the  presentation  to  the  people,  and  the  installation.:}: 
The  enemy  was  encamped  in  Gilead.  At  this  point,  the 
people  and  their  rulers,  assembled  in  convention  on  the  plain, 
said  to  one  another,  "  Who  shall  be  our  chief,  to  lead  us 
against  the  foe  ?"  This  was  the  discussion,  in  which  every 
citizen  seems  to  have  had  the  right  to  participate.  In  the 
exceedingly  brief  history  of  the  affair,  it  is  not  expressly 
stated,  but  it  is  necessarily  implied,  that  Jephthah,  of  Gilead, 
a  man  of  distinguished  military  genius  and  reputation,  was 
nominated  by  the  voice  of  the  assembly.  But  this  able  cap- 
tain had  been  some  years  before  driven  out  from  his  native 
city.  It  was  necessary  to  soothe  his  irritated  spirit.  To  this 
end  the  elders  went  in  person  to  seek  him,  laid  before  him 
the  urgent  necessities  of  the  state,  softened  his  anger  by 
promises  of  preferment,  and  brought  him  to  Mizpeh.  Here, 
manifestly,  they  made  a  formal  presentation  of  him  to  the 
people,  for  it  is  added,  "the  people  made  him  head  and  cap- 
tain over  them."  That  is,  they  completed  the  election  by 
giving  him  their  suffrages,  recognizing  him  as  their  leader, 

Heb.  Com.  B.  2,  S.  11;  Lowm.  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  9;  and  Harriugton  od 
the  Com.  of  Israel,  c.  2. 

*  Deut.  i.  13. 

t  Judg.  xi.  11.  t  l^'id-  X,  17,  18,  and  xi.  1-11. 


LAWS    OF   THE   AJSTCIENT   HEBREWS.  503 

and  installing  him  in  his  office.  Here,  then,  we  have,  1.  The 
free  discussion  of  the  people  in  a  popular  assembly  concerning 
the  selection  of  a  leader ;  2.  The  nomination  of  Jephthah  by 
the  meeting  to  be  chief;  3,  The  elders'  presentation  of  him 
to  the  people  for  their  suffrages  ;  and  4.  His  inauguration  as 
prince  and  leader  of  Israel.  It  is  to  the  analysis  of  such  in- 
cidental relations  as  this  scattered  here  and  there  through  the 
history,  that,  in  default  of  a  more  exact  account  of  the  primi- 
tive order  of  things,  we  are  corajDelled  to  resort,  in  our  study 
of  the  Helrcw  constitution,  for  much  of  the  information, 
which  it  would  be  gratifying  to  find  in  a  more  detailed  and 
systematic  form. 

The  magistrates,  then,  in  every  tribe  were  a  prince  of  the 
tribe,  chiefs  of  families  or  clans,  genealogists,  and  judges. 
"  Each  of  these  classes  of  magistrates  had  its  own  peculiar 
duties.  The  judges  administered  justice.  The  genealogists 
kept  the  genealogical  tables,  in  which  they  occasionally  noted 
the  most  remarkable  occurrences  of  their  times  The  his- 
torical notices  contained  in  the  first  book  of  Chronicles,  and 
which  are  not  found  in  the  books  of  Moses,  wer<^  probably 
derived  from  these  tables.*  The  heads  of  families,  with 
the  prince  of  the  tribe,  had  charge  of  the  general  concerns 
of  each  tribe,  and  to  them  the  judges  and  genealogists  were 
in  some  degree  subordinate.  In  Palestine  these  magistrates 
were  distributed  into  the  several  cities,  and  those  who  re- 
sided in  the  same  city,  composed  the  legislative  assembly  of 
that  city  and  the  surrounding  district  When  the  magis- 
trates of  all  the  cities  belonging  to  any  one  tribe  were  col- 
lected, they  formed  the  supreme  court,  or  legislative  assem- 
bly, of  the  tribe.  In  like  manner,  the  magistrates  in  several 
difi'erent  tribes  might  assemble  in  one  body,  and  legislate 
conjointly  for  all  those  tribes  which  they  represented.  When 
the  magistrates  of  all  the  tribes  met  together,  they  farmed 
the  general  legislature  of  the  whole  nation.     Though  there 

*  1  Chron.  iv.  21-23,  39-45.    v.  10,  19-22.    vii.  20-24. 


504:  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

•was  no  pecuniary  emolument  attached  to  these  cffices,  they 
conferred  great  dignity  and  authority  upon  those  who  held 
them."* 

Such  is  a  brief  view  of  tlie  magistracies,  instituted  or 
confirmed  by  the  Mosaic  constitution.  Let  us  now  direct  our 
attention  to  the  tribes  themselves  in  their  individual  capacity, 
in  their  relation  to  one  another,  and  in  their  legislative  func- 
tions. 

It  is  agreed,  on  all  hands,  by  those  who  have  written  on 
the  Hebrew  institutes,  that  each  tribe  formed  a  separate 
state.  Each  composed  an  entire  j^olitical  community,  in 
some  respects  independent  of  the  others.  Each  was  under 
its  own  proper  government,  administered  its  own  affairs  by 
its  own  representative  assemblies  and  magistrates,  and 
claimed  and  exercised  many  of  the  rights  of  sovereignty. 
Its  local  legislation  and  municipal  arrangements  were  in  its 
own  hands.  "  Dan,"  says  the  venerable  patriarch  Jacob, 
"shall  judge  his  people,  as  one  of  the  tribes  of  Israel."  On 
this,  bishojD  Sherlock,f  an  author  of  great  learning  and 
judgment,  observes :  "  It  is  evident,  that  every  tribe  had  its 
own  prince  and  judge,  and  that  every  prince  or  head  of  a 
tribe  judged  his  own  people ;  consequently  every  tribe  had  a 
sceptre  and  lawgiver,  as  well  as  the  tribe  of  Judah."  In 
other  words,  every  tribe  had  its  own  proper  staff  of  com- 
mand and  a  distinct  administration  of  justice.:}:  The  princes 
of  the  tribes,  chiefs  of  families,  judges,  and  genealogists 
governed  the  tribes  of  Israel,  as  distinct  and  independent 
sovereignties.  The  tribes  were  all  equal  in  respect  of  poli- 
tical dignity  and  right.  The  sovereignty  of  Simeon,  which 
numbered  but  twenty-two  thousand  men  capable  of  bearing 
arms,  was  as  complete  as  that  of  Judah,  which  had  seventy- 
six  thousand.  No  one  tribe  had  any  political  superiority  or 
right  of  command  over  any  other.     This  is  plain  from    the 

*  Jahn's  Heb.  Com.  B.  2.  S.  11.  f  Dissertation  3. 

X  T.owm  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  5. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  505 

fact,  that  on  the  death  of  Joshua,  the  peoj^le  inquire  of  God, 
"who  should  go  U23  for  them  against  the  Canaanites ?" * 
This  question  could  not  have  been  asked,  if  any  one  tribe  had 
had  the  right  of  precedency  and  government  over  the  rest. 
The  answer  was,  "  Judah  shall  go  up."f  Judah  thus  acquired 
the  right  of  leading  by  a  decision  of  the  oracle  ;  a  clear 
proof,  that  such  a  right  did  not  otherwise  belong  to  that 
tribe. 

The  powers  reserved  to  the  separate  tribes,  and  freely  ex- 
ercised by  them,  were  very  great.  "VVe  find  them  often  acting 
like  independent  nations.  This  was  the  case  not  only  when 
there  was  neither  king  nor  judge,  in  the  land,  but  even  under 
the  government  of  the  kings.  They  levied  war  and  made  peace, 
whenever  it  seemed  good  to  them.  Thus  we  find  Joshua  ex- 
horting his  brethren,  the  children  of  Joseph,  to  make  war 
against  the  Perizzites ;:{:  and  Zebulon  and  Naphthali  uniting 
to  fight  against  Jabin.§  We  see  the  tribe  of  Dan,  singly  and 
of  its  own  proper  motion,  attacking  and  destroying  the  people 
of  Laish,  and  afterwards  taking  possession  of  their  city  and 
the  surrounding  country.  A  very  remarkable  record  of  this 
kind  is  contained  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  1  Chronicles.  ||  It  is 
there  related,  that  the  tribes  beyond  Jordan,  even  in  the 
reign  of  Saul,  carried  on,  upon  their  own  responsibility,  a 
most  important  war.  Yet  so  little  interest  was  taken  in  it  by 
the  other  tribes,  that  the  author  of  the  book  of  Samuel  has  not 
so  much  as  alluded  to  it  in  his  history  of  that  prince ;  though, 
in  a  military  point  of  view,  it  was  a  far  more  brilliant  afikir 
than  all  his  martial  achievements  together.  Four  nations 
were  leagued  together  against  the  trans-jordanic  tribes  in  this 
war.  The  booty  taken  from  the  enemy  was  immense; — 
fifty  thousand  camels,  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  sheep, 
two  thousand  asses,  a  hundred  thousand  prisoners  of  war ; 
and  of  slain,  the  historian  says,  "  there  fell  down  many."    The 

*  Judg.  i.  1.  t  Ibid.  i.  2. 

X  Josh.  svii.  15.  I  Judg.  iv.  10.  11  Vy.  18-23. 


S06  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

entire  territories  of  these  nations  came  into  the  possession  of 
the  Hebrews  as  tlie  fruit  of  this  contest,  "and  they  dwelt  in 
their  steads  until  the  captivit}'."  As  late  as  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah,  we  see  the  tribe  of  Simeon  waging  two  successful 
wars, — one  against  the  inhabitants  of  Gedor,  and  the  other 
against  the  remnant  of  the  Amalekites, — and  that  without  aid 
or  authority  from  its  neighbor  republics.* 

Some  occurrences  of  a  different  kind,  in  the  history  of  the 
kings,  will  further  illustrate  the  powers,  which  the  constitu- 
tion conferred  upon  the  separate  tribes.  By  divine  direction, 
David  had  been  anointed  king  in  the  life-time  of  Saul.f 
That  unction,  however,  did  not  inaugurate  him  as  king,  nor 
confer  any  authority  upon  him.  It  was  rather  a  prophecy  iu 
action,  foreshadowing  his  future  elevation  to  the  throne. 
Therefore,  when  Saul  had  fallen  in  battle,  David  returned,  as 
a  private  person,  to  one  of  the  cities  of  Judah.  There  he 
awaited  the  action  of  the  people  in  his  behalf.  At  first  he 
became  king  of  Judah  alone,  and  that  by  the  free  choice  of 
the  citizens  of  that  tribe.:}:  In  the  message,  which  he  sent  to 
the  inhabitants  of  Jabesh-Gilead,  thanking  them  for  their 
kindness  to  Saul,  he  does  not  arrogate  any  right  of  command 
over  them,  nor  address  them  in  quality  of  sovereign.  He 
simply  informs  them,  that  the  men  of  Judah  had  chosen  him 
for  their  king,  thus  virtually  inviting  them  to  follow  the  ex- 

*  1  Chrou  iv.  41-43. 

t  1  Sam.  xvi.  13.  Dr.  Clarke,  in  his  note  on  2  Sam.  ii.  4,  remarks : 
"David  was  anointed  before  by  Samuel,  by  which  he  acquired  jms  ad  reg- 
nwm,  a  right  to  the  kingdom;  by  the  present  anointing  he  had /«s  in 
regno,  authority  over  the  kingdom." — "  The  invisible  king  directed  the 
prophet  Samuel  to  assure  the  throne  privately  by  a  prophetic  anointing  to 
David,  the  youngest  son  of  Jesse,  a  citizen  of  Bethlehem."  Jahtfs  Heb. 
Com.  B.  4,  S.  28.  It  will  be  seen,  that  the  views  of  these  eminent  scholarg 
accord  with  those  expressed  in  the  text  as  to  the  nature  and  object  of 
David's  unction  by  Samuel. 

t  2  Sam.  ii.  1-4. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  507 

ample.*  Meanwhile,  the  other  eleven  tribes  had  anointed 
Ishbosheth,  the  son  of  Saul,  as  their  king.f  It  is  evident, 
that  David  did  not  regard  that  as  an  illegal  act  on  their  part, 
for  he  limited  his  hostile  movements  simply  to  defending  him- 
self, when  attacked  by  the  armies  of  Ishbosheth.  Joab,  his 
geueral-in-chief,  had  no  orders  to  attack  the  troops  of  his  rival, 
or  to  maintain  his  own  claim  to  the  throne  by  force  of  arms. 
Ishbosheth  reigned  two  years  without  any  rupture  with  David 
or  his  men  ;  nor  did  the  civil  war  commence,  till  Abner,  cap- 
tain of  his  host,  crossing  over  Jordan  with  his  forces,  pro- 
voked an  encounter.  Joab,  in  a  conference  with  Abner,  in- 
timated that  he  would  not  have  attacked  the  adherents  of 
David's  rival,  unless  he  had  been  provoked  to  it;  thus  clearly 
showing  that  his  orders  were  to  act  only  on  the  defensive.:]: 
One  after  another,  the  eleven  tribes  came  into  the  interest  of 
David ;  and  at  length  the  whole  nation  chose  him  for  their 
king,  and  made  a  league  with  him,  that  is,  proposed  a  capi- 
tulation limiting  the  royal  prerogative,  to  which  he  solemnly 
assented  ;  after  which  he  was  anointed  sovereign  of  all  Israel, 
as  having  been  elected  by  the  voice  of  the  people  to  that  high 
dignity.§ 

The  many  and  heavy  exactions,  to  which  the  people  had 
been  subjected  during  the  reign  of  Solomon,  had  greatly  ex- 
asperated their  minds.  Towards  the  close  of  his  life,  their 
complaints  became  loud  and  bitter.  On  his  death,  they  pro- 
posed to  his  son  Rehoboam,  certain  new  stipulations,  with  a 
view  to  lighten  the  public  burdens.  Their  request,  though 
reasonable,  was  insolently  and  contemptuously  rejected  by  the 
fiery  young  monarch.  Thereupon  ten  of  the  tribes  refused 
their  allegiance  to  the  new  government,  and  chose  a  king  of 
their  own.     It  would  almost  seem  as  if  this  was  not  an  act  of 

*  2  Sam.  ii.  5-7.  f  l^^id.  ii.  8-9. 

J  Ibid.  ii.  12-29.  See  especially  v.  27,  as  confirming  the  last  statement 
in  the  text. 

§  2  Sam.  chaps,  iii.  iv.  v.  and  xai. — particularly  the  last. 


608  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

rebellion,  but  the  exercise  of  a  reserved  right ;  for  Judah 
was  forbidden  by  the  Lord  to  make  war  upon  the  ten  tribes. 
At  any  rate,  an  instantaneous  revolt  of  this  kind  could  not 
have  occurred,  unless  the  Israelites  had  been  governed,  as 
Michaelis  expresses  it,  "  tribe-wise,"  each  tribe  being  a  little 
republic,  and  having  its  own  leading  men,  according  to 
whose  views  the  rest  of  the  people  regulated  their  conduct. 

From  the  above  detail  it  appears,  that  "  the  Hebrew  con- 
stitution authorized  each  tribe  to  provide  for  its  own  in- 
terests ;  or,  if  the  strength  of  any  one  of  them  was  insuffi- 
cient for  the  purpose,  to  unite  with  some  of  the  other  tribes, 
and  make  common  cause  with  them.  We  frequently  find 
several  tribes  thus  acting  in  concert.  Judah  and  Simeon 
united  in  their  war  against  the  Canaanites ;  as  did  also 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh.  The  tribes  of  Zebulon  and  ISTaph- 
thali  united  with  Barak  to  oppose  the  army  of  Jabin.  Ma- 
nasseh, Asher,  Zebulon,  and  I^aphthali,  chose  Gideon  for 
their  leader  against  the  Midianites.  The  tribes  east  of  Jor- 
dan made  choice  of  Jephthah  for  their  general  to  carry  on  a 
war  against  the  Ammonites.  In  later  times,  and  during  the 
reign  of  Saul,  the  same  tribes  made  war  upon  the  Hagarites, 
the  Ituraeans,  the  Nobadites,  and  the  Naphishites,  Upon 
the  death  of  Saul,  eleven  tribes  remained  faithful  in  their 
allegiance  to  his  family,  and  seven  years  intervened  before 
they  submitted  to  David.  After  the  death  of  Solomon,  ten 
tribes  revolted  from  the  house  of  David,  and  elected  Jero- 
boam for  their  king.  In  short,  any  tribe,  or  any  number  ot 
tribes  united,  exercised  the  power  of  convening  legislative 
assemblies,  passing  resolves,  waging  wars,  making  treaties, 
and  electing  for  themselves  chiefs,  generals,  regents,  and 
kings."* 

*  Jahn's  Heb.  Com.  B.  2,  S.  13.  The  passages  on  which  Dr.  Jahn  relies 
for  th3  statements  made  in  this  extract  are, — Judg.  i.  1-3,  22.  vii.  23,  29 
viii.  ]  -3.  xl  1-11.  1  Chron.  t.  10,  18,  19.  2  Sara.  iii.  17.  1  Kings  xii. 
1-24. 


LAWS    OF  THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  509 

In  such  a  constitution  of  the  tribes,  various  disturbing 
forces  coukl  not  but  exist ;  and  the  history  informs  us  of  the 
action  of  these  antagonistic  forces  upon  several  occasions 
Rivah-ies  would  naturally  spring  up  among  twelve  sovereign 
states  so  closely  connected  with  each  other.  Lesser  interests 
would  sometimes  stand  in  the  way  of  the  general  welfare. 
TIence  arose  jealousies,  which  sometimes  issued  in  fierce, 
sanguinary,  and  protracted  civil  wars.*  All  this  we  may  readi- 
ly believe  from  the  examples  of  Holland,  Switzerland,  the  Uni- 
ted States,  and  especially  of  the  German  empire,  which,  from 
the  inequality  of  its  constituent  parts,  is  perpetually  dis- 
tracted by  divisions,  and  has  often  been  the  scene  of  intestine 
hostilities.  Nothing,  then,  could  be  more  probable  than 
sectional  jealousies  and  rivalries  among  the  constituent 
members  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth ;  and  Michaelis  has 
well  remarked,!  that  two  cases  may  be  supposed,  in  which 
they  would  certainly  break  out,  and  display  all  their  mis- 
chievous effects  : — 1.  If  any  two  tribes  became  more  powerful 
than  the  others,  in  which  event  they  would  regard  each  other 
with  suspicion  and  hatred ;  and  2.  If  any  one  tribe  acquired 
considerable  ascendancy  over  the  rest,  of  which  the  conse- 
quence would  be,  the  excitement  of  their  universal  envy  and 
opposition.  The  learned  commentator  adds,  that  both  these 
cases  actually  occurred  in  the  Israelitish  republic  ;  a  fact  of 
so  much  importance,  that  it  may  be  said  to  form  the  key  to 
the  whole  Hebrew  history.  The  Israelites  entered  Palestine 
with  a  force  of  six  hundred  thousand  citizens,  capable  of 
bearing  arms,  exclusive  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  Of  course,  the 
medium  strength  of  the  tribes  would  be  about  fifty  thousand. 
Those  tribes,  which  exceeded  that  number,  would  be  accounted 
strong ;  and,  in  like  manner,  those  which  fell  below  it,  woi^4d 

*  Judg.  xii.  1-6.     XX.  1-48.    2  Sam.  iii.  1.    1  Kings  xii.  16-24. 

f  Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  46 ; — an  article  to  which  I 
acknowledge  my  indebtedness  in  illustrating  this  part  of  my  subject,  since 
1  have  embodied  the  valuable  substance  of  it  in  these  paragraphs. 


510  COMMENTARIES   ON    THE 

be  deemed  weak.  It  may  gratify  the  reader  to  see  the  com- 
parative strength  of  the  tribes,  at  this  time,  brought  into  one 
view.  This  is  dono  in  the  foUowing  statement,  in  which 
fractions  of  thousands  are  omitted  for  the  sake  of  brevity. 
The  tribe  of  Joseph  numbered  eighty-five  thousand  ;  Judah, 
seventy-six  thousand  ;  Issachar,  sixty-four  thousand  ;  Zebulon, 
sixty  thousand ;  Asher,  fifty-three  thousand ;  Dan,  forty-six 
thousand  ;  Benjamin,  forty-five  thousand  ;  Kaphtali,  forty-five 
thousand  ;  Reuben,  forty- three  thousand ;  Gad,  forty  thousand  ; 
and  Simeon,  twenty-two  thousand.*  It  will  not  escape  the 
notice  of  the  reader,  that  one  tribe,  that  of  Simeon,  was  very 
weak ;  that  two,  Joseph  and  Judah,  were  very  powerful ; 
while  the  others  did  not  vary  materially  from  the  average 
strength.  The  tribe  of  Joseph  was,  indeed,  divided  into  two 
half-tribes  ;  but  it  was  still,  and  even  as  late  as  near  the  close 
of  Joshua's  administration,  regarded  and  spoken  of  as  one 
tribe. f  Ephraim,  however,  in  consequence  of  the  prophetic 
blessing  of  Jacob,  and  the  predictions  concerning  his  future 
extraordinary  increase,:};  though  as  yet  numerically  weak,  in 
comparison  with  Manasseh,  was  regarded  as  his  superior,  and, 
indeed,  obtained  a  certain  preeminence  over  all  the  other 
tribes.  From  this  time,  therefore,  we  find  a  perpetual  emu- 
lation and  rivalry  existing  between  the  two  tribes  of  Ephraim 
and  Judah.  This  sentiment  of  jealousy,  sometimes  reaching 
even  to  hatred,  displayed  itself  on  all  occasions  ;  and  allu- 
sions to  it  are  not  infrequent  in  the  prophetical  writings.§  It 
is  very  distinctly  recognized  by  Isaiah, ||  when,  foretelling  the 
peaceful  efiect  of  Messiah's  reign,  he  says,  "  And  the  envy  of 
Ephraim  shall  depart,  and  the  enemies  of  Judah  shall  be  cut 
off.  Ephraim  shall  not  envy  Judah,  and  Judah  shall  not  vex 
Ephraim."     The  prophet   predicts  a   state  of  harmony  and 

*  Numb.  xxvi.  t  Josh.  xvli.  17.  J  Gen.  xlviii.  15-20. 

g  Judg.  viii.  1.  xii.  1.     1  Kings  xi.  26;  xiv.  30;  xv.  16.     Ps.  Ixxvii. 

0-11,  60,  67,  68.  Is.  xi.  13.     Jer.  iii.  18.    Ez.  xxxvii.  16-19.     Hos.  i.  11. 
il  xi.  13. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    EEBKEWS.  511 

peace  bj  declaring,  that  the  hereditary  and  proverbial  enmi- 
ty of  Judah  and  Ephraira  shall  cease.*  Thonghout  the  entire 
Hebrew  history,  from  the  exodus  to  the  captivity,  these  two 
were  regarded  as  the  leading  tribes  of  Israel.  In  the  wilder- 
ness, Moses  gave  the  precedence  of  all  the  tribes  to  Judah, 
in  assigning  to  it  the  most  honorable  place  in  the  army,  whe- 
ther in  the  camp  or  on  the  march. f  But  after  his  death,  two 
events  occurred,  which  tended  greatly  to  the  exaltation  and 
preeminence  of  Ephraim.  That  tribe  had  the  good  fortune 
to  give  to  the  nation  a  chief  magistrate  in  the  person  of 
Joshua,  and  also  to  have  the  tabernacle,  the  palace  of  their 
invisible,  heavenly  king,  set  up  in  Shiloh,  a  place  within  the 
territory  of  Ephraim.:}:  Both  these  circumstances  advanced 
the  honor  of  the  tribe ;  and  the  latter,  by  promoting  trade 
and  marriages,  gave  it  no  inconsiderable  advantages,  in  re- 
spect of  the  increase  of  wealth  and  population.  From 
that  time,  the  ambition  of  Ephraim  knew  no  bounds.  The 
jealousy  of  the  Ephraimites  towards  the  other  tribes  appears 
in  their  conduct  to  Gideon  and  Jephthah.g  Their  special 
jealousy  of  Judah  showed  itself  in  their  refusal  to  submit 
to  David,  after  the  death  of  Saul ;  !|  in  their  adherence  to 
Absalom,  when  he  revolted  against  his  father;^  and  in  the 
readiness  with  which  they  joined  in  the  revolt  of  Jeroboam, 
who  was  himself  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim.**  The  author  of 
the  seventy  eighth  Psalmff  represents  Ephraim  as  having  been 
the  chief  tribe,  and  God  as  having  rejected  it  fur  its  political 
and  religious  apostacy,  when  the  tabernacle  and  the  kingdom 
were  transferred  to  Judah.  Even  while  Ephraim  continued 
the  most  influential  tribe,  Judah  enjoyed  a  more  extensive 
sway,  than  the  other  tribes  to  the  west  of  the  Jordan.     When 

*  Alexander  on  Isaiah, — note  on  Ch.  si.  13. 
f  Num.  ii.  3.  x.  14.  X  Josh,  xviii.  1.     1  Sam.  iv.  3. 

§  Judg.  viii.  1.     xii.  1.  ||  2  Sam.  ii.  8,  9.         T[  lb.  xviii.  G. 

**  1  Kings  xi.  26.    xii.  16.    See  Alexander's  note  on  Is.  xi.  13. 
ft  vv.  9-11,  m,  67,  6?. 


512  COJOCENTAEIES   ON   THE 

tlie  monarchy  was  substituted  for  the  deraocracj,  a  king  was 
elected  from  Benjamin,  the  youngest  and  weakest  of  all 
the  tribes.  This  seems  to  be  a  perfect  levelling  of  the 
tribes.  Apparently  no  preference  was  given  to  any  of  them^ 
on  account  of  any  preeminence  in  dignity,  or  power,  sup- 
posed or  real.  If,  however,  we  look  a  little  below  the  surface 
of  things,  we  shall  judge  otherwise.  We  must  bear  in  mind 
how  exceedingly  genealogical  and  clannish  was  the  way  ot 
thinking  among  the  Hebrews.  This  will  throw  no  little  light 
upon  the  point.  As  Benjamin  and  Joseph  were  sons  of  the 
same  mother,  the  Benjamites  regarded  themselves  as  in  some 
sense  belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Joseph.  Of  this  we  have  a 
certain  proof  in  the  fact,  that  Shiniei,  though  a  Benjamite, 
said,  that  he  was  the  first  man  of  all  the  house  of  Joseph  to 
meet  king  David,  when  he  returned  victorious,  after  crushing 
the  rebellion  ot  Absalom.*  Hence,  even  when  Benjamin 
was  advanced  in  the  person  of  Saul  to  the  leadership  of 
Israel,  Ephraim  still  enjoyed  a  certain  preeminence.  In  the 
80tli  Psalm,  composed  about  this  time,  Ephraim,  Benjamin, 
and  Manasseli  are  mentioned  as  the  chief  tribes,  Ephraim 
being  placed  before  the  other  two.  The  rivalship  between 
the  tribes  continued,  with  unabated  force,  during  the  reign  of 
Saul.  That  king  had  but  little  authority  in  the  tribe  of  Ju- 
dah ;  for,  when  he  was  pursuing  David  with  the  bitterest 
enmity  to  take  his  life,  David  had  little  difficulty  in  eluding 
him,  by  fleeing  from  place  to  place  within  the  limits  of  that 
tribe.  And  when  at  last  he  fled  into  the  land  of  the  Philis- 
tines, there  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any  necessity  for 
his  doing  so.  lie  might  have  remained  where  he  was,  with- 
out much  j)eril  of  a  capture.  On  the  other  hand,  Saul,  as 
king,  was  very  partial  to  his  own  kindred,  including,  beyond 
a  doubt,  the  children  of  Joseph,  as  well  as  those  of  Benja- 
min. Upon  them  he  conferred  most  of  the  ofiices  within  the 
gift  of  the  crown.     This  he  openly  acknowledged,  and  made 

*  2  Sam.  xix.  20. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  513 

it  the  ground  of  a  claim  to  tlieir  gratitude  and  support.* 
When  Saul  fell  in  battle,  eleven  of  the  tribes,  doubtless  under 
the  lead  of  Ephraim,  adhered  to  his  family,  and  chose  Ish- 
bosheth  for  their  king.  Judah  alone  recognized  David  as 
their  sovereign.  But  David  was  a  man  of  consummate 
ability  and  great  nobleness  of  character.  lie  acted  with 
prudence,  moderation,  and  magnanimity.  These  are  quali- 
ties, which  never  fail  to  excite  the  admiration  and  love  of  the 
people.  Tliey  so  won  upon  the  tribes  of  Israel,  that,  by  de- 
grees, they  all  voluntarily  submitted  themselves  to  his  rule. 
It  M'as  the  surrender  of  their  hearts  rather  than  of  their  arms. 
The  civil  and  military  talents  of  David  were  equal  to  each 
other,  and  both  were  of  the  highest  order.  Under  his  ad- 
ministration, the  territories  of  the  state  were  greatly  en- 
larged ;  its  wealth  and  power  were  increased ;  and  its  renown 
was  spread  far  and  wide.  Its  name  struck  terror,  not  only 
into  the  petty  tribes  in  its  immediate  neighborhood,  but  into 
the  great  nations  dwelling  on  the  shores  of  the  distant  Eu- 
phrates. The  tribe  of  Judah  now  became  exceedingly  pow- 
erful. Its  numbers  were  incredibly  multiplied,  the  eflect  not 
merely  of  the  natural  increase  of  population,  but  also  of  the 
multitude  of  foreigners,  who  flocked  to  its  capital,  and  be- 
came proselytes  to  the  Jewish  religion.  Even  before  this 
time,  the  other  tribes  had  begun  to  be  called  by  the  common 
name  of  Israel.f  Thenceforward  Israel  came  to  be  their 
ordinary  designation,  and  they  were  animated  by  a  common 
jealousy  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.:}:  It  was  in  this  sentiment, 
that  the  roots  of  that  unnatural  rebellion  excited  by  Absa- 
lom, found  a  congenial  soil.  The  extraordinary  success  of 
that  patricidal  revolt  has  been  the  puzzle  of  many,  and  is 
wholly  inexplicable,  except  as  the  result  of  a  deeply  seated 
and  long  cherished  animosity  on  the  part  of  the  other  tribes 
towards  the  tribe  of  Judah.     This  animosity  even  broke  out, 

*  1  Sam.  xxii.  7.  f  2  Sam.  ii.  9. 

X  2  Sam.  xix.  11,  40-43.     xx.  1,  2.  ' 

33 


514  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

and  raged  violent!}',  on  the  king's  return.  A  strife  arose  be- 
tween Judah  and  the  other  tribes,  as  to  which  should  reeal 
him  to  the  throne,  and  it  came  near  ending  in  a  revolt  of  the 
eleven  tribes  from  David,*  The  power  and  splendor  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah  culminated  in  the  reign  of  Solomon.  David 
and  Solomon,  kings  of  the  house  of  Judah,  were  no  common 
men.  For  seventy  three  years  did  the  other  tribes  submit  to 
their  government,  awed  by  the  splendor  of  their  genius,  the 
force  of  their  character,  and  the  vigor  of  their  rule.  But  the 
fire  was  all  the  while  glowing  under  the  ashes,  and  waited 
but  an  occasion  to  burst  forth  in  fierce  and  devouring  flames. 
That  occasion  was  found  in  an  imprudent  declaration  of  Reho- 
boam,  the  son  and  successor  of  Solomon,  on  his  accession  to  the 
throne.  Ten  of  the  tribes,  led  by  Jeroboam,  an  Ephraimite, 
revolted,  shook  off  their  allegiance  to  the  kings  of  Judah,  and 
set  up  a  separate  kingdom,  with  Jeroboam  for  their  king.f 
He  takes  but  a  superficial  view  of  the  Hebrew  history,  who 
regards  the  conduct  of  Rehoboam,  however  unwise  or  even 
unjust  it  might  have  been,  as  the  cause  of  this  schism.  It 
was  but  the  occasion,  the  pretext.  The  cause  was  the  old 
grudge  of  Ephraim  against  Judah.  The  separation  was  not 
a  sudden  occurrence ;  it  was  not  fortuitous  ;  it  was  but  the 
natural  result  of  causes,  which  had  long  been  working.  It  is 
very  remarkable,  that,  of  all  the  kings  who  reigned  over 
Israel,  although  they  were  very  far  from  succeeding  one 
another  in  the  line  of  hereditary  descent,  there  was  not  one 
that  did  not  belong  to  Ephraim  ;  so  that,  with  the  single  ex 
ception  of  Saul,  all  the  Hebrew  kings  were  natives  of  one  oi 
other  of  the  two  rival  tribes. 

As  the  result  either  of  an  admirable  stroke  of  policy  on  the 
part  of  David,  or  of  an  equally  admirable  good  fortune, 
Benjamin,  after  the  separation,  remained  united  to  Judah,  and 
the  two  tribes  ever  afterwards  formed  one  kingdom.  The 
event,  to  which  I  refer,  was  the  choice  by  David  of  the  city 

*  2  Sam.  six.  9-14.     40-43,     xx,  1,  2.  ^  \  Kings  sii.  1-20. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBKEWS.  515 

of  Jerusalem  for  his  residence  and  capital.  This  city  was 
within  the  territory  of  Benjamin,  but  it  lay  close  to  the  con- 
fines of  Judah,  and  had  long  been  inhabited  by  members  of 
the  latter  tribe,  as  well  as  of  the  former,  David's  selection 
of  it  for  the  royal  residence  was  well  calculated  to  flatter  the 
pi'ide  of  the  Benjamites,  and  unite  them  more  closely  to  his 
family.  It  appears  to  have  had  the  effect  to  extinguish  the 
jealousy,  which  Benjamin,  in  common  with  Ephraim,  had  felt 
towards  the  tribe  of  Judah.  At  all  events,  its  issue  was,  as 
stated  above,  to  link  the  fortunes  of  these  two  tribes  together 
in  indissoluble  bonds. 

Such,  then,  were  the  jealous  rivalries,  which,  sometimes 
more  and  sometimes  less  active,  we  find  always  subsisting 
among  the  tribes  of  Israel ;  and  such  the  bitter  fruits,  which 
they  produced.  But  it  was  rot  ambition  alone,  which  dis- 
turbed the  peace  of  the  nation,  and  caused  the  blood  of  the 
citizens  to  stream  forth  in  civil  strife.  Great  as  the  reserved 
rights  of  the  tribes  were,  they  occasionally  magnified  them 
beyond  their  just  bounds  and  betrayed  a  strong  disposition  to 
nullify  the  laws  of  the  general  government.  But  such  a  pro- 
cedure was  at  the  peril  of  the  tribe  engaging  in  it.  In  the 
book  of  Judges*  we  have  a  painfully  interesting  account  of 
an  act  of  nullification  on  the  part  of  Benjamin ;  wherein  we 
see,  that  the  authority  of  the  national  law  was  vindicated  by 
the  other  tribes  with  a  severity,  bordering  on  barbarism.  The 
tribe  of  Benjamin  was  prophetically  described  as  a  ravening 
wolf  ;f — a  figure  highly  descriptive  of  its  fierce  and  warlike 
character.  The  case,  to  which  I  refer,  was  this.  A  Levite 
and  his  wife  were  travelling  peaceably  through  the  territories 
of  Benjamin.  At  Gibeah,  some  demons  in  the  form  of  men, 
called  by  the  historian  "  sons  of  Belial,"  abused  the  latter  in 
such  a  way  as  to  cause  her  death.  The  Levite  appealed  for 
retribution  to  the  tribes  in  a  general  court.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  Benjamin,  they  assembled  at  once  in  convention  at 

*  Chaps,  xix,  xx.  f  Gen.  xlix.  27. 


516  .  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

Mizpeh.  There,  the  states-general,  in  regular  session,  l/eard 
the  appeal  to  their  justice.  They  carefullj  examined  into  the 
facts  of  the  case.  They  found  certain  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Gibeah  guilty,  not  only  of  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  hospi- 
tality and  huinanitj^,  and  of  a  riotous  breach  of  the  peace, 
but  moreover,  which,  in  a  national  point  of  view,  was  of 
greater  importance,  of  a  breach  and  violation  of  the  common 
right  of  the  tribes  to  a  safe  passage  through  the  whole  coun- 
try. It  was,  therefore,  not  so  much  an  injury  to  any  private 
persons,  as  to  the  tribes  of  Ephraira  and  Judah,  to  which  the 
Levite  and  his  wife  belonged.  Indeed,  it  was  an  injury  to  all 
the  tribes  in  common,  since  the  case  of  Ephraim  and  Judah 
might  become  the  case  of  any  of  them.  No  man  in  all  Israel 
could  have  any  security  in  travelling,  if  such  open  outrage 
and  violence  were  suffered  to  go  unpunished.  But  the  tribes 
were  independent  of  each  other.  No  one  tribe  had  jurisdic- 
tion over  any  of  the  rest.  Benjamin  was  a  sovereign  state. 
Neither  Judah  nor  Ephraim  could,  by  the  constitution,  call 
the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah  to  account.  This  was,  therefore, 
a  case  calling  for  the  interposition  of  the  states -general.  Yet 
even  they  could  not  proceed  directly  against  the  guilty  par 
ties.  That  w'ould  have  been  in  dei'ogation  of  the  sovereignty 
of  Benjamin.  Therefore,  having  by  investigation  satisfied 
themselves  of  the  facts  in  the  case,  they  sent  a  summons  to 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin  to  deliver  up  the  delinquents,  that  they 
might  be  dealt  with  according  to  law.  Benjamin  declined  a 
compliance  with  this  summons,  and  determined  rather  to  dis- 
solve the  union  of  the  states  than  submit  to  the  will  of  the 
nation,  though  expressed  in  a  deliberate,  dispassionate,  and 
constitutional  manner.  This  changed  the  entire  case.  It  was 
no  longer  the  murder  of  a  private  person  by  some  ill-disposed 
individuals  of  the  city  of  Gibeah,  but  an  open  rebellion  of 
the  whole  tribe  of  Benjamin.  The  authority  of  the  national 
union  w\as  opposed  and  set  at  naught.  And,  not  content  with 
refusing  to  give  up  the  murderers  to  justice,  Benjamin  raised 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  517 

an  army  to  protect  them,  and  levied  war  against  all  Israel. 
The  rest  of  the  tribes  declared  them  in  a  state  of  rebellion, 
and  proceeded  against  them  accordingly.  So  stubborn  and 
unbending  was  the  spirit  of  the  nullifying  tribe,  that  the 
national  army  was  twice  defeated.  But  in  the  third  battle 
Benjamin  was  routed,  with  the  loss  of  twenty-five  thousand 
men ;  and  there  was  no  danger  of  the  offence  being  repeated, 
for  the  oflPending  city  was  levelled  with  the  ground,  the  coun- 
try was  made  a  wilderness,  and  six  hundred  men,  posted  on 
the  inaccessible  rock  of  Eimmon,  were  all  that  remained  of 
the  contumacious  tribe.* 

From  this  history  of  the  Benjaraite  rebellion  the  passage 
is  natural  to  a  consideration  of  the  union  of  the  tribes  in  a 
general  government;  for,  while  the  history  illustrates  the 
distinct  nationality  and  independent  spirit,  I  might  amost  add 
the  turbulent  temper,  of  the  separate  tribes,  it  affords,  at  the 
same  time,  a  proof  and  an  example  of  the  reality,  strength, 
and  vigor  of  the  national  administration.  The  central  go- 
vernment was  not  a  mere  confederacy  of  states.  Such  an 
organization  would  have  been  too  feeble,  and  too  tardy  in  its 
action,  for  the  elements,  which  it  was  intended  to  control. 
It  was  a  GOVERNMENT  iu  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  and 
not  a  CONFEDERATION.  Moscs  drcw  up  a  constitution,  which 
applied,  not  merely  to  each  tribe  as  a  distinct  political 
body,  but  also  to  the  individuals  in  the  tribe.  He  made  it 
bear  on  every  individual  in  every  tribe,  thus  giving  to  each  a 
personal  interest  in  the  national  concerns,  and  making  him 
as  much  a  member  of  the  nation,  as  he  was  of  his  own 
tribe.f  The  tribes  formed  but  one  nation.  And  though 
they  had  separate  interests,  as  being  in  some  respects  in- 
dependent states,  they  had  also  general  interests,  as  being 
united  in  one  body  politic.     They  had  much  in  common  to 

*  Lowm.  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  C.  14.     Chr.  Exam.  No.  76. 
t  Chr.  Exam.  No.  76. 


518'  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

draw  them  together  in  bonds  of  brotherhood,  and  strengthen 
the  ties  of  political  union ; — a  common  ancestor,  the  illus- 
trious depositary  of  promises  appertaining  to  all  the  tribes 
alike ;  a  common  God,  who  was  their  chosen  and  covenanted 
king ;  a  common  tabernacle  and  temple,  which  was  the  royal 
palace  ;  a  common  oracle,  the  urim  and  thummim ;  a  com- 
mon high  priest,  the  prime  minister  of  the  king ;  a  common 
learned  class,  who  possessed  cities  in  all  the  tribes  •  a  com- 
mon faith  and  worship,  which  at  the  same  time  differed  fun- 
damentally from  that  of  all  other  contemporaneous  nations  ; 
and  a  common  law  of  church  and  state.*  Thus,  while  each 
Hebrew  was  strongly  concerned  to  maintain  the  honor  of  his 
tribe,  the  constitution  of  the  general  government  gave  him  an 
equal  interest  in  the  honor  of  his  country. 

Thus  we  see,  that  the  constitution  was  so  contrived,  that, 
notwithstanding  the  partial  independence  and  sovereignty  ot 
the  separate  tribes,  each,  as  constituting  a  part  of  the  national 
union,  had  a  kind  of  superintendence  over  all  the  rest,  in 
regard  to  their  observance  of  the  law.  Any  of  the  tribes 
could  be  called  to  an  account  by  the  others  for  an  infraction 
of  the  organic  law :  and,  if  they  refused  to  give  satisfaction, 
they  might  be  punished  by  war.  f  Obedience  to  the  states- 
general,  in  whom  the  tribes  were  united  into  one  government, 
was  a  fundamental  obligation  of  every  member  of  the  na- 
tional union.  On  this  point  the  constitution  was  imperative. 
Disobedience  to  their  orders,  a  rebellious  opposition  to  their 
authority,  was  an  act  of  high  treason ; — the  greatest  crime 
that  can  be  committed,  since  it  is  an  injury,  not  to  any  one 
man,  or  any  number  of  private  persons,  but  to  the  whole 
society,  and  aims  at  subverting  the  peace  and  order  of  the 
government,  on  which  the  property,  liberty,  happiness,  and 
life  of  the  citizens  depend,:}: 

Let  me  adduce  two  proofs  of  this   obligation  on  the  part 

*  Jahn's  Hch.  Com.  B.  2.  S.  13.  f  Ibid.  Judg.  xx. 

\  Lowm.  Civ.  Heb.  c.  14. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBEEWS.  519 

of  the  tribes  to  submit  to  the  will  of  the  nation,  as  embodied 
in  the  resolves  of  the  general  government. 

The  first  is  taken  from  a  record,  which  I  find  in  the  thirty- 
sixth  chapter  of  Numbers.*  By  a  law,  passed  some  time 
before,  constituting  daughters,  in  default  of  sons,  the  legal 
heirs  of  their  fathers,  it  would  happen,  that  the  inheritance 
of  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad,  who  belonged  to  the  tribe 
of  Manasseh,  if  they  married  into  another  tribe,  would  be 
transferred  from  their  own  to  their  husband's  tribe.  This, 
should  it  ever  occur,  Manasseh  thought  would  be  a  hardship 
and  a  wrong.  What  course  did  that  tribe  pursue  ?  She  did 
not  attempt  to  rebel  against  the  authority  of  the  nation,  and 
nullify  the  laws  of  the  land.  She  brought  the  case  before 
the  national  legislature,  and  sought  relief  through  its  action. 
She  appealed  to  the  justice  of  the  nation  in  congress  as- 
sembled, just  as  the  states  of  our  union  do.  Her  petition 
was  respectfully  considered,  and  a  law  was  enacted  in  ac- 
cordance   with   its    prayer.       By    this  law,   heiresses    were 

*  The  critical  reader,  who  examines  the  references  to  see  whether  they 
sustain  the  text,  might,  on  a  cursory  perusal  of  the  chapter  here  cited,  be 
inclined  to  think,  that  in  the  view  presented  in  this  paragraph,  too  much 
is  rested  on  assumption.  A  deeper  study  of  the  subject,  however,  will  be 
apt  to  change  such  an  impression.  For.  first,  either  the  first  eleven  verses 
of  the  27th  chapter  should  come  in  before  this  chapter,  or  this  chapter 
should  come  in  immediately  after  those  eleven  verses,  since,  as  Dr.  Clarke 
says,  both  certainly  make  parts  of  the  same  subject,  and  there  it  is  ex- 
pressly said,  that  the  matter  was  brought  "  before  Moses,  and  before 
Eleazar  the  priest,  and  before  the  princes,  and  before  all  the  congrega^ 
tion,"  and  by  them  referred  to  the  oracle.  Secondly,  even  in  this  chapter, 
the  chiefs  of  Manasseh  are  related  to  have  laid  their  petition  before  Moses 
and  the  princes,  who  may  here  very  well  be  taken,  in  a  general  sense,  to 
mean  the  whole  diet.  And,  thirdly,  even  if  this  chapter  stood  wholly  dis- 
connected with  the  27th  chapter,  and  neither  the  diet  nor  any  part  of  it 
had  been  mentioned  at  all,  still  the  analogy  of  numerous  other  cases  in 
the  Hebrew  history  would  authorise  us  to  assume,  that  the  matter  had 
been,  in  due  form,  laid  before  the  states-general  of  Israel,  and  by  them 
solemnly  adjudicated. 


520 


COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 


required  to  marry  in  their  own  tribes,  that  no  part  of  the 
ancient  inheritance  niiglit  be  alienated  from  the  original 
family.  It  is  plain,  that,  if  the  decree  of  the  nation  had 
been  different  from  what  it  was,  Manasseh's  duty  would  have 
been  submission.  Eesistance  and  nullification  would  have 
been  in  derogation  and  contravention  of  rightful  authority. 

The  second  proof  of  the  duty  of  obedience  on  the  part  of 
the  tribes  to  the  decrees  of  the  general  government,  I  derive 
from  the  history  of  the  wrong  done  by  certain  Beiijuniites  to 
a  Levite,  who  was  passing  through  their  territory,  taken  in 
connexion  with  the  national  proceedings,  which  followed 
thereupon.*  The  states-general  immediately  convened  at 
Mizpeh,  and  passed  a  resolve,  calling  upon  the  local  govern- 
ment of  Benjamin,  to  deliver  up  the  offenders,  that  they 
might  be  dealt  with  as  their  conduct  deserved.  This  order 
Benjamin  refused  to  obey.  "What  said  the  national  govern- 
ment ?  Did  it  say,  that  Benjamin,  being  a  sovereign  state, 
Lad  a  right  to  interpret  the  constitution  for  herself,  and 
to  act  her  own  pleasure  in  the  matter  ?  Far  from  it.  It  de- 
clared, that  she  had  been  guilty  of  an  infraction  of  the 
organic  law,  and  an  act  of  treason  against  the  state.  And 
the  nation  proceeded  at  once  to  vindicate  lier  own  sovereign- 
ty and  supremacy.  There  was  no  coaxing,  no  truckling,  no 
faltering.  Kot  lionied  words,  but  hard  blows,  promptly  ad- 
ministered, and  with  a  terrible  energy  and  rapidity  of  repeti- 
tion, were  the  means  employed  to  sustain  the  majesty  of  the 
government  and  the  authority  of  the  law. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Hebrew  tribes  were,  in  some 
respects,  independent  sovereignties,  while,  in  other  respects, 
their  individual  sovereignty  was  merged  in  the  broader  and 
higher  sovereignty  of  the  commonwealth  of  Israel.  They 
were  independent  republics,  having  each  a  local  government, 
which  was  sovereign  in  the  exercise  of  its  reserved  rights ; 
yet  the^  all  united  together  and  formed  one  great  republic, 

*  Judg.  xix.  20. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  621 

with  a  general  government,  which  was  sovereign  in  the  high- 
est sense.  The  constitution  of  Israel  had,  in  this  respect,  a 
similitude  to  our  own,  which  will  strike  every  reader.  It 
may  also  be  considered  as  in  some  measure  resembling  that 
of  Switzerland,  where  thirteen  cantons,  of  which  each  has  a 
government  of  its  own,  and  exercises  the  right  of  war,  are 
nevertheless  united  into  one  great  state,  under  a  general  gov- 
ernment. Thus  all  the  Israelitish  tribes  formed  one  body 
politic.  They  had  one  common  weal.  They  held  general 
diets.  They  were  bound  to  take  the  field  against  a  common 
enemy.  They  had  at  first  general  judges,  and  afterwards 
general  sovereigns.  And  even  when  they  had  no  common 
head,  or,  as  the  sacred  historian  expresses  it,  when  there  was 
neither  king  nor  judge,  a  tribe  guilty  of  a  breach  of  the  fun- 
damental law,  might  be  accused  before  the  other  tribes,  who, 
as  we  have  seen,  were  authorized  to  carry  on  war  against  it 
as  a  punishment.  It  is  evident,  that  the  tribes  were  some- 
times without  a  general  chief  magistrate.  The  constitution, 
as  explained  above,  makes  it  quite  conceivable,  that  the  state 
might  have  subsisted  and  prospei'ed  without  a  common  head. 
Every  tribe  had  always  its  own  chief  magistrate ;  subordinate 
to  whom  again,  were  the  chiefs  of  clans,  the  judges,  and  the 
genealogists ;  and  if  there  was  no  general  ruler  of  the  whole 
people,  there  were  twelve  lesser  commonwealths,  whose 
general  convention  would  deliberate  together,  and  take  mea- 
sures for  the  common  interest.  The  head  might  be  gone, 
but  the  living  body  remained.  Its  movements  would  be  apt 
to  be  slower  and  feebler ;  yet,  as  the  history  of  the  Benja- 
mite  rebellion*  teaches  us,  they  did  not  always  want  either 
promptness  or  energy. f 

As  the  twelve  tribes,  though  independent  and  sovereign 

*  This  is  said  to  have  happened  (Judg.  xix.  1),  when  "there  was  no 
king  in  Israel;"  i.  e.  when  the  tribes  had  no  common  head,  no  general 
chief  magistrate. 

t  Mich  Com.  Art.  46. 


622  COMMENTAEIES    ON    THE 

for  local  purposes,  jet  formed  but  one  political  body  for  the 
care  and  promotion  of  the  common  weal,  they  would  natu- 
rally have  general  legislative  assemblies,  who  would,  as  occa- 
sion required,  meet  together  and  consult  for  the  good  of  the 
nation  at  large.  This  we  find  to  have'  been  actually  the 
case.*  The  law  can  neither  enact,  interpret,  nor  execute 
itself.  For  the  discharge  of  these  functions  there  is  required 
a  certain  number  of  citizens,  organized  into  one  or  more 
bodies,  and  forming  a  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive 
corps.  Conringius,f  bishop  Sherlock,;}:  and  Lowman§  totally 
misconceive  and  misrepresent  the  Hebrew  constitution,  when 
they  den}^,  that  it  lodged  any  proper  legislative  power  in  the 
national  diet,  or  states-general  of  Israel.  Their  error  arises 
from  a  misinterpretation  of  Deut.  4:1,2.  "  ]S*Dw,  therefore, 
hearken,  O  Israel,  unto  the  statutes  and  unto  the  judgments 
which  I  teach  you,  for  to  do  them,  that  ye  may  live  and  go 
on,  and  possess  the  land,  which  the  Lord  God  of  your  fathers 
giveth  you.  Ye  shall  not  add  unto  the  word  which  I  com- 
mand you,  neither  shall  ye  diminish  aught  from  it,  that  ye 
may  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  your  God,  which  I 
command  you."  The  same  thing  is  repeated  in  Deut.  12  :  32. 
"What  thing  soever  I  command  you,  observe  to  do  it ;  thou 
shalt  not  add  thereto,  nor  diminish  from  it."  From  these 
precepts,  the  learned  authors,  cited  above,  erroneously  con- 
clude, that  no  proper  legislative  authority  or  power  was  con- 
fided by  the  constitution  to  the  general  assemblies  of  Israel. 
There  is,  undoubtedly,  a  sense,  in  which  the  law  was  perpe- 
tual and  unchangeable,  viz,  in  its  principles.  The  principles 
of  a  pure  and  absolute  justice  remain  always  the  same ;  and 
new  developments  of  those  principles,  made  necessary  by 
new  circumstances,  do  not  change,  even  in  modifying  them, 
the  truth  of  former  developments.     It  would  be  absurd  in  a 

*  Exod.  xix.  7,  8.     Numb.  i.  16,  xvi.  2,  x.  2-4,  xxvii.  2,  xxxvi.  1.     Deut. 
xix.  10.     Josh,  xxiii.  2.  xxiv.  1.     Judg.  xx.  2. 

t  De  Rep.  Heb.  S.  10.  %  Dissert.  3.  ^  Civ.  Gov.  Hob  C.  7. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  523 

legislator,  in  giving  a  code  of  laws  to  a  people,  to  take  away 
from  them  the  power  of  euactiog  new  laws,  as  new  manners 
and  new  conditions  of  the  body  politic  required  them.  The 
command  of  Moses  in  this  case  must  be  understood  as  ad- 
dressed to  individuals,  and  as  announcing  to  them,  that  they 
must  observe  the  whole  law,  without  adding  to  it,  or  taking 
from  it,  on  their  private  authority.  "When  he  speaks  to  the 
national  assemblies,  to  all  Israel,  his  language  is  altogether 
different.  Then,  on  the  contrary;  he  commands  to  seek  just- 
ice, to  provide  for  the  public  welfare,  to  pursue  (go  on  in) 
the  way  of  equity,  otherwise  called  "the  way  of  the  Lord," 
without  turning  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left ;  that  is, 
without  departing  from  the  fundamental  principles,  laid 
down  in  the  constitution.  Thence  the  Hebrew  doctors  derive 
the  maxim,  assented  to  by  the  great  Selden,  "  From  the 
senate  [the  national  diet]  proceeds  the  law  to  all  Israel."* 

The  great  principle  of  legislation,  which  pervades  the  He- 
brew constitution,  is,  that  the  general  will,  the  common  con- 
sent of  the  citizens,  freely  and  clearly  expressed  in  regular- 
ly constituted  assemblies,  is  necessary  to  give  birth  to  law. 
This  principle  Moses  seems  to  have  regarded,  if  not  as  an 
essential,  at  least  as  an  important  bond  of  social  order,  and  a 
great  source  of  strength  to  the  body  politic.  Hence  at  Sinai 
he  obtained  the  assent  of  the  people,  through  their  elders,  to 
the  proposition  of  Jehovah  to  be  their  king  and  to  the  laws 
which  he  should  dictate.f  Again,  after  numerous  laws  had 
been  given,  and  while  the  Hebrews  still  remained  encamped 
at  the  foot  of  mount  Sinai,  he  called  the  diet  together  anew, 
rehearsed  "  all  the  words  of  the  Lord  and  all  the  judgments," 
and  proposed  a  fresh  vote  upon  them,  whereupon  the  people, 
by  their  representatives,  signiiied  their  unanimous  approval, 
and  formally  enacted  them  into  laws.     Kot  content  with  even 

*  Mischna,  vol.  4,  c.  10,  and  Selden  de  Synedriis,  cited  by  Salvador,  in 
Hist,  des  Inst,  de  Moise.  1.  1,  c.  2. 
f  Exod.  six.  3-8. 


524  COMMENTAKIES   ON   THE 

tllis  expression  of  the  popular  will,  he  caused  them  all  to  be 
written  out,  engrossed  as  it  were,  and  the  next  day,  after 
offering  a  solemn  sacrifice  accompanied  by  various  imposing 
and  impressive  ceremonies,  he  read  them  in  the  audience  of 
the  assembly,  and  required  another  formal  assent.  This  last 
act  was  strictly  of  the  nature  of  a  compact  between  Jehovah 
as  sovereign  and  the  Hebrews  as  subjects ;  and  it  is  express- 
ly called  so  by  Moses."^  In  like  manner  a  short  time  before 
his  death,  when  the  code  had  been  completed,  he  assembled 
the  national  legislature,  and  submitted  the  whole  body  of 
laws  to  their  approval,  and  caused  them  to  renew  the  com- 
pact with  their  king.f  Surel}',  never  did  legislator  attach  a 
higher  importance  to  the  general  will,  or  take  more  pains  to 
obtain  a  full,  free,  and  fair  expression  of  it. 

This  great  principle  of  popular  consent,  as  the  basis  and 
nerve  of  legislation,  received  fresh  confirmation,  on  various 
memorable  occasions,  in  the  subsequent  history  of  the  com- 
monwealth. After  the  passage  of  the  Jordan,  Joshua  assem- 
bled the  states-general  of  Israel,  agreeably  to  an  express 
injunction  of  Moses,  and  caused  the  nation  to  renew  its  vote 
in  favor  of  the  code,  which  had  been  framed  for  it.:}:  Kear 
the  end  of  his  life,  this  same  Joshua,  a  worthy  successor  of 
Moses,  as  having  no  small  share  of  his  ability,  and  as  being 
deeply  penetrated  with  his  spirit,  convened  the  representatives 
of  the  nation  at  Shechem,  recounted  the  leading  events  of  their 
history,  and  made  them  re-elect  Jehovah  for  their  king,  renew 
the  compact  with  him,  and  give  their  assent  once  more  to  the 
laws,  which  he  had  ordained. §  On  the  return  of  the  Jews 
from  Babylon  and  the  re-establishment  of  their  republic,  the 
law  was  publicly  proclaimed  for  many  successive  days,  and  a 
solemn  formula  was  drawn  up,  in  which  the  assent  and  sanc- 
tion of  the  nation  might  be  expressed.  To  this  document 
twenty-three  priests,  seventeen  Levites,  and  forty-four  chiefs 

*  £xod.  xxiv.  3-8.  f  Deut.  xxix.  9-13. 

X  Josh.  liii.  30-35.  2  Ibid.  xxiv. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  525 

of  the  people,— eiglitj-four  leading  men  in  all, — signed  their 
names,  and  affixed  their  seals.  The  rest  of  the  people  gave 
their  assent  to  the  covenant  and  the  statutes,  in  a  manner 
somewhat  less  formal,  but  no  less  binding  * 

These  facts  are  a  demonstration,  that  the  principle  in  ques- 
tion entered  essentially  into  the  constitution  of  Moses,  and 
into  the  practice  of  the  nation.  They  put  the  seal  of  authen- 
ticity upon  it,  Bossuet  himself,  a  man  of  vast  genius,  but 
whose  social  relations  made  him  too  much  the  friend  of  abso- 
lute power,  and  from  whom  nothing  but  the  force  of  truth 
could  have  drawn  such  an  expression  of  opinion,  recognizes 
this  fact  in  the  following  terms :  "  God,  through  the  agency 
of  Moses,  assembles  his  people,  proposes  to  them  the  law, 
which  establishes  the  rights  of  the  nation,  both  sacred  and 
civil,  public  and  private,  and  causes  them  to  give  their  assent 
thereto  in  his  presence.  The  entire  people  expressly  consent 
to  the  compact.  Moses  receives  this  compact  in  the  name  of 
the  people,  who  had  given  it  their  assent."f  Again  :  "  All 
who  have  spoken  accurately  concerning  the  [Hebrew]  law, 
have  regarded  it,  in  its  origin,  as  a  solemn  pact  and  treaty, 
by  which  individual  men  agree  together  in  reference  to  what 
is  necessary  to  form  themselves  into  a  civil  society.":}: 

But  since  Jehovah  is  the  creator  of  men,  and  can  lay  upon 
them  whatever  obligations  he  pleases,  since  he  needs  not 
human  assent  to  strengthen  his  authority,  why  should  he  pro- 
pose laws,  instead  of  imposing  them  ?  Why  should  he  exact 
the  free  concurrence  of  individuals?  If  his  word  is  truth, 
expressing  both  that  which  is,  and  that  which  ought  to  be,  to 
what  end  should  serve  the  approval  of  a  multitude  ?  To  this 
I  reply  as  follows:  First,  God  did  not  give  laws  to  the  He 
brews  as  their  creator,  but  as  their  deliverer  and  the  founder 
of  their  state.  Secondly,  an  important  purpose  of  the  Hebrew 
polity  was  to  teach  mankind  the  real  nature  of  civil  govern- 

♦Neh.  viii.  18;  ix.  38;  x.  1-29. 

f  Politique  Sacree,  1.  1.  Art.  4.  %  ^^^^' 


526  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

nient,  and  the  trno  source  of  political  power ;  whence  it  ne- 
cessarily follows,  that  the  authority  of  Jehovah,  as  civil  head 
of  the  Hebrew^  state,  must  be  drawn  from  the  same  fountain, 
rest  upon  the  same  basis,  and  be  regulated  by  the  same  prin- 
ciples, as  the  authority  of  a  human  ruler,  standing  in  the 
same  relation  to  a  civil  community.  Thirdly,  several  valua- 
ble political  advantages,  even  with  Jehovah  himself  for  king, 
resulted  from  the  assent  of  the  people  to  the  code.  As  1. 
The  law  then  became  not  simply  a  rule,  but  a  rule  clothed 
with  the  consent  of  all.  It  was  the  expression,  not  of  an 
absolute  power,  but  of  the  general  will ;  or  rather,  to  speak 
more  philosophically,  it  was  the  expression  of  political  truth, 
sanctioned  by  the  general  will.  A  rule  arbitrarily  imposed, 
however  good  it  may  be,  tends  to  despotism;  and  a  thing, 
wrong  in  itself  and  contrary  to  the  eternal  principles  of  just- 
ice, though  sanctioned  by  the  voice  of  the  whole  world,  can 
never  be  a  law  to  bind  the  conscience.  2.  The  consent  of  the 
people  to  the  public  compact  had  the  eifect  of  obliging  each 
individual  towards  all  the  rest.  And  3.  It  had  the  further 
effect  of  binding  the  moral  person  called  the  state,  which  was 
formed  by  this  union,  to  the  infinite  and  unchangeable  being; 
the  Hebrews,  on  their  part,  promising  to  shun  whatever  was 
hurtful,  and  tn  submit  to  whatever  was  useful,  to  the  body 
politic,  and  Jehovah,  on  his,  engaging  to  recompense  their 
fidelity  with  prosperity  and  happiness. 

It  has  been  well  remarked  by  Salvador,*  that  no  other 
nation  offers  the  example  of  a  compact  so  wise  and  so  sub- 
lime. He  adds  the  opinion,  which  is  worthy  of  being 
pondered,  that  it  is  the  essential  cause  of  the  strong  power  of 
cohesion,  developed  by  the  political  association  of  the  He- 
brews, inspiring  prophets,  full  of  genius,  with  the  thought, 
that,  as  long  as  the  laws  of  nature  shall  endure,  Israel  and 
his  law  shall  never  pass  away.     Such,  then,  is  the  principle 

*  Hist,  des  Inst,  de  MoVse;  1.  1.  C.  2.  The  whole  of  the  chapter  on  the 
formation  of  the  law,  is  well  worthy  of  the  reader's  attention, 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  527 

of  the  Hebrew  legislation,  viz.  that  law  must  rest  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  general  will,  the  consent  of  the  nation  freely 
and  clearly  expressed. 

The  legislative  assemblies,  created  by  the  constitution  of 
Moses,  were  of  two  kinds, — an  upper  and  a  lower  house. 
The  former  was  a  select  assembly,  called  commonly  the  prin- 
ces, elders,  or  senators  of  Israel ;  and  was  convened  by  the 
sound  of  a  single  trumpet.  The  latter  was  a  larger  and  more 
popular  assembly,  called  the  congregation  of  Israel ;  and  the 
signal  for  calling  it  together  was  the  blowing  of  two  trumpets.* 
These  were  the  signals  while  Israel  was  an  army,  and  abode 
in  the  wilderness  ;  but  after  the  nation  was  settled  in  Canaan, 
either  they  met  at  stated  times,  or  heralds  nmst  have  been 
employed  to  convey  the  summons  for  assembling  to  the  per- 
sons having  a  seat  in  the  diet.  "  These  general  assemblies 
were  convened  by  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  commonwealth, 
by  the  commander  of  the  array,  or  by  the  regent;  and,  when 
the  nation  had  no  such  supreme  head,  by  the  high  priest,  in 
his  capacity  of  prime  minister  to  the  invisible  king.  The 
great  assembly  mentioned  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Judges, 
was  undoubtedly  convoked  by  the  high  priest  Phinehas,  who 
was  so  zealous  for  the  honor  of  Jehovah. f  It  was  to  these 
assemblies,  that  Moses  immediately  addressed  himself,  and  to 
them  he  delivered  the  precepts,  which  he  received  from  Je- 
hovah. The  magistrates,  particularly  the  genealogists,  then 
communicated  to  the  people  the  precepts  and  orders  of  Moses, 
each  one  to  the  families  under  his  immediate  direction.  In 
like  manner,  the  commands  of  the  generals  and  the  resolves 
of  the  assemblies  were  made  known  to  the  people,  who  were 
sometimes  assembled  ready  to  receive  these  communications  ; 
or  if  not,  were  called  together  by  the  proper  officers.  The 
legislative  assemblies  exercised  all  the  rights  of  sovereignty. 

*  Numb.  X.  2-4. 

f  Numb.  X.  2-4.  Josh,  xxiii.  2.  xxiv.  1.  1  Sam.  xi.  14.  Judg.  x.  T 
28. 


528  COMMENTAKIES   ON   THE 

They  dedared  war,  made  peace,  formed  alliances,  cLose  gen- 
erals, chief  judges  or  regents,  and  kings.  Tliey  prescribed 
to  the  rulers  whom  they  elected  the  priiiciples  by  which  they 
were  to  govern.  They  tendered  to  them  the  oath  of  office, 
and  rendered  them  homage."* 

I  forbear  for  the  present  all  investigation  of  the  vexed 
question  as  to  who  were  entitled  to  seats  in  the  national  le- 
gislature, reserving  such  inquiries,  till  I  come  to  treat,  in 
detail,  of  the  different  branches,  which  composed  it. 

I  have  already  spoken  of  the  inferior  courts  among  the 
Hebrews,  by  which  the  local  administration  of  justice  was 
conducted.  But  the  judiciary  system  could  not  be  complete, 
without  a  supreme  judicature,  which,  accordingly,  we  find  to 
have  been  established  by  the  constitution.  The  provision  for 
this  court  is  in  the  following  words  :  "  If  there  arise  a  matter 
too  hard  for  thee  in  judgment,  between  blood  and  blood, 
between  plea  and  plea,  and  between  stroke  and  stroke,  being 
matters  of  controversy  within  thy  gates  (i.  e.  in  the  inferior, 
local  courts) ;  then  thou  slialt  arise,  and  get  thee  unto  the  place 
which  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose  ;  and  thou  shalt  come 
unto  the  priests  the  Levites,  and  unto  the  judge  that  shall  be 
in  those  days,  and  inquire ;  and  they  shall  show  thee  the 
sentence  of  judgment. "f  The  priests  the  Levites  and  the 
judge  here  evidently  mean  a  nat'.onal  council  or  court.  The 
phrase  cannot  be  understood  of  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi,  but 
must  be  interpreted  of  such  priests  and  Levites  only,  as  had 
some  commission  to  give  judgment  in  the  place,  which  Jeho- 
vah should  choose.  They  were  not  priests  and  Levites  in 
general,  but  chosen  members  of  a  national  tribunal.  It  was 
not,  indeed,  made  necessary  by  any  provision  of  the  consti- 
tution or  any  direction  of  law,  that  the  priests  or  Levites 

*  Jahn's  Heb.  Com.  B.  2.  S.  14.  Exod.  xix.  7,  xxiv.  3-8,  xxxiv.  31.  xxxv. 
1.  Josh.  ix.  15-21.  Judg.  XX.  1-13,  18,  28.  xxi.  13  seqq.  1  Sam.  x.  24. 
xi.  14,  15.  2  Sam.  iii.  17-21.  v.  1-3.  1  Kings  xii. 

t  Deut.  xvii.  8,  9. 


LAWS    OF    THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  529 

should  be  in  this  tribunal  at  all ;  yet,  on  account  of  their 
learning  and  knowledge  of  the  laws,  they  would  naturally  be 
esteemed  best  qualified  to  be  cliosen  to  interpret  them. 
This  supreme  judicature,  composed  of  persons  of  the  greatest 
ability,  experience,  and  learning  in  the  laws,  was  not  only 
highly  important  and  useful,  as  a  court  of  appeal  in  adjudi- 
cating difficult  cases,  and  those  in  which  great  interests  were 
at  stake  between  individuals  ;  but  it  was  absolutely  indispen- 
sable for  the  decision  of  controversies,  which  might  arise  be- 
tween different  tribes.  As  no  one  tribe  had  any  authority  or 
jurisdiction  over  any  other,  such  controversies  could  be  decided 
only  by  some  common  judge.  The  tribes,  as  sovereign  states, 
were  subject  to  no  lower  court,  than  the  supreme  judicial 
council  of  the  whole  nation.  What  concerned  one  tribe 
was  by  no  means  to  be  determined  by  the  judges  of 
another.*  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that  the  judgment 
of  this  court  was  final.  Hence  it  was  enacted  :  "  Thou  shalt 
do  according  to  the  sentence,  which  they  of  that  place  which 
the  Lord  shall  choose  (the  supreme  court)  shall  show  thee  ; 
and  thou  shalt  observe  to  do  all  according  to  all  that  they 
inform  thee  ;  according  to  the  sentence  of  the  law  which  they 
shall  teach  thee,  and  according  to  the  judgment  which  they 
shall  tell  thee,  thou  shalt  do ;  thou  shalt  not  decline  from 
the  sentence  which  they  shall  show  thee,  to  the  right  hand 
nor  to  the  left."  f 

From  this  general  view  of  the  Hebrew  constitution,  a  brief 
reference  to  the  tribe  of  Levi  can  by  no  means  be  omitted. 
This  was  the  learned  class,  a  kind  of  literary  aristocracy. 
The  members  of  this  tribe  were  devoted  to  the  tabernacle 
and  the  altar,  that  is,  politically  speaking,  to  be  the  ministers 
and  courtiers  of  the  king  Jehovah,  They  performed,  not 
only  the  rites  of  religion,  but  also  the  duties  of  all  those 
offices  of  state,   for  which  learning   was   necessary.      They 

*  Lowm.  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  5.  Selden  de  Synedr.  1.  3.  c.  4. 
t  Deut.  xvii.  10,  11.  * 

34 


530  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

were  by  birth  devoted  to  the  cultivation  of  the  sciences, 
especially  the  science  of  government  and  jurisprudence. 
They  were  to  study  the  book  of  the  law ;  to  make,  preserve, 
and  disseminate  correct  copies  of  it ;  to  instruct  the  people 
both  in  human  and  divine  learning ;  to  test  the  accuracy  of 
weights  and  measures ;  to  exhort  the  soldiers,  and  inspire 
them  with  courage,  when  about  to  engage  in  battle ;  to  per- 
form the  duty  of  police  physicians  ;  to  determine  and  an- 
nounce the  moveable  feasts,  new  moons  and  intercalary  years  ; 
to  discharge  the  functions  of  judges  and  genealogists ;  with 
a  variety  of  other  duties.  *  Consequently  they  were  to  be 
theologians,  jurists,  lawyers,  historiographers,  mathematicians, 
astronomers,  surveyors,  teachers,  orators,  and  medical  prac- 
titioners. "  What  fruits  might  not  such  a  plant  have  borne, 
if  the  priests  and  Levites  had  faithfully  accomplished  the 
purposes  of  their  appointment  !"f 

The  prophetical,  not  less  than  the  Levitical  order,  among 
the  Hebrews,  had  very  important  relations  to  the  civil  state. 
The  proj^hets  were  the  popular  orators  of  the  Israelitish  com- 
monwealth. They  were  not,  as  has  been,  with  diiferent 
views  and  for  different  ends,  alleged  by  the  church  of  Kome 
and  the  school  of  Voltaire,  an  appendage  of  the  priesthood. 
On  the  contrary,  they  were  quite  independent  of  the  sacer- 
dotal order,  Jind  of  the  royal  power  as  well.:]:  In  the  public 
assemblies  on  the  sabbath,  the  new  moon,  and  in  the  solemn 
convocations,  the  prophets,  observes  Calmet,§  harangued  the 
people,  and  freely  reproved  the  disorders  and  abuses,  which 
bhowed  themselves  in  the  nation.  They  were  true  patriots, 
who  spoke  the  truth,  without  disguise  and  without  fear,  to 

*  Numb,  xviii.  2-1.  Lev.  xxv.  8,  9.  Deut.  xvii.  9.  xx.  2-4.  xxxi,  11-13. 
Lev.  xiii.  14.  1  Chron.  xxiii.  4.  2  Chron.  xvii.  7-9.  six.  8.  xxxiv.  13. 
Mai.  ii.  7. 

t  Jahn's  Heb.  Com.  B.  2.  S.  12. 

X  Eichhorn  cited  by  Salvador,  1.  2,  c.  3. 

§  Dissert,  but  Ics  Ecoles  des  Hebreux,  S.  11. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  531 

people,  priests,  senatoi's,  princes,  and  kings.  "We  have 
an  instance  of  this  in  the  indignant  rebuke  of  Isaiah,  chap.  1  : 
21-24 :  "  How  has  she  become  an  harlot,  (faithless  to  her 
compact  with  Jehovah,)  the  faithful  city,  full  of  justice, 
righteousness  lodged  in  it,  and  now  murderers,  Tli}^  silver 
is  become  dross,  thy  wine  weakened  with  water.  Thy  rulers 
are  rebels,  and  fellows  of  thieves,  every  one  of  them  loving 
a  bribe  and  pursuing  rewards.  The  fatherless  they  judge 
not,  and  the  cause  of  the  widow  cometh  not  unto  them. 
Therefore,  saith  the  Lord,  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  miglity  one 
of  Israel,  I  will  comfort  myself  of  my  adversaries  (literally, 
from  them,  i.e.  by  ridding  mj^self  of  them)  and  I  will  avenge 
myself  of  my  enemies."* 

Thus  it  appears,  from  all  which  has  gone  before,  that  the 
nature  of  the  public  functions,  prescribed  in  the  Hebrew 
constitution,  flow  from  the  nature  of  things.  The  first  want 
of  a  state,  as  of  every  organized,  living  being,  is  self-preser- 
vation. To  meet  this  want,  the  constitution  institutes  certain 
functionaries,  not  only  to  strengthen  the  union  of  the  tribes, 
but  also  to  preserve,  in  its  integrity,  both  the  letter  and  the 
spirit  of  the  fundamental  law,  and  to  teach  it  incessantly  to 
the  people.  Such  are  the  Hebrew  priests  and  Levites. 
J^ext,  the  body  politic  wants  a  supreme  legislative  council, 
to  watch  over  its  wants,  to  direct  its  general  movements,  to 
shape  its  policy,  and  to  modify  old  laws  and  enact  new  ones, 
as  the  exigency  of  times  and  occasions  demands.  For  this 
the  constitution  provides  in  the  assemblies  composing  the 
states-general  of  Israel.  The  third  fundamental  necessity  of 
a  nation  is  that  of  having  the  civil  relations  of  the  citizens 
maintained  agreeably  to  the  rules  laid  down  in  the  law.  The 
constitution  satisfies  this  requirement  by  a  judiciary  system, 
which  brings  the  administration  of  justice  to  every  man's 
door,  and  makes  it  at  once  cheap  and  speedy,  taking  care, 
however,  to  prevent  the  evils  of  crude,  hasty,  and  interested 

*  Alexanders  Translation,  Earlier  Prophecies,  pp.  16,  17. 


532  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

decisions,  by  a  system  of  appeal  through  courts  of  various 
grades,  up  to  the  supreme  judicature,  which  holds  its  sessions 
in  the  capital  of  the  republic.  Again,  the  state  requires, 
that  its  force  be  wisely  and  effectively  directed  against  its 
public  enemies.  This  care  the  constitution  devolves  upon 
the  chief  magistrate  of  Israel.  Finally,  it  is  necessary  to  the 
best  welfare  of  a  state,  that  men  of  lofty  genius,  men  en- 
dowed with  sagacity  to  discover  the  connexion  between  an 
existing  evil  and  antecedent  acts  of  folly  or  injustice,  men  in- 
spired with  great  ideas,  political  or  moral,  should  be  able 
freely  to  utter  their  thoughts,  and  boldly  to  censure  both  ma- 
gistrates and  people.  This  necessity  the  Hebrew  constitution 
meets  by  its  institution  of  the  prophetical  order ;  an  institu- 
tion, which,  in  those  remote  ages,  admirably  supplied  the 
want  of  a  free  press,  and  must  have  contributed,  powerfully 
and  effectively,  to  the  formation  of  a  public  opinion,  wise, 
just,  pure,  and  dignified. 

Before  concluding  this  chapter,  let  us  glance  at  the  govern- 
ment of  the  individual  tribes  and  cities. 

Each  tribe  was  a  i*eproduction,  a  miniature  copy,  as  it 
were,  of  the  nation.  It  would  naturally  happen,  that  the 
government  and  functionaries  of  the  former  would  correspond, 
in  all  important  respects,  to  the  latter.  Nor  have  we  any 
reason  to  doubt,  that  such  was  the  case.  This  at  least  is  the 
general  opinion  of  the  learned.  As  all  Israel  had  a  council 
of  elders  and  a  representative  congregation  of  the  people,  so 
each  tribe  had  its  senate  of  princes  and  its  popular  assembly. 
All  the  tribes  together  formed  a  sort  of  federative  republic, 
in  which  nothing  could  be  done  or  resolved  without  the  gen- 
eral consent  of  their  respective  representatives,  and  in  which 
each  individual  tribe  had  a  constitution  formed  upon  the 
model  of  the  national  constitution. 

As  the  general  government  was  the  type  of  the  provincial 
governments,  so  these  furnished  the  model  of  the  city 
administrations.     Every  city  had  its  bench  of  elders,  distinct 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  533 

from  its  judges  and  genealogists.*  Thus  the  cities,  like  the 
nation  and  the  tribes,  had  an  upper  and  a  lower;  house,  a  board 
of  aldermen  and  a  board  of  assistant  aldermen.  These  mu- 
nicipal assemblies  managed  the  public  business  of  the  cities, 
as  the  assemblies  of  the  tribes  administered  the  general  aiFairs 
of  the  tribes,  and  the  assemblies  of  the  commonwealth  those 
of  all  Israel.  Numerous  proofs  of  this  constitution  of  the 
city  governments  occur  in  the  sacred  books.  That  every 
city,  with  its  surrounding  district,  was  to  have  a  board  of 
judges  and  genealogists,  we  have  already  seen.f  That  a 
board  of  elders  was  superadded  to  this  as  a  part  of  the  mu- 
nicipal administration,  the  evidence  is  equally  clear.  The 
men  of  Succoth  having  offended  Gideon,  when  pursuing  the 
routed  Midianites,  on  his  return  from  the  battle  he  caught  a 
young  man  of  the  place,  and  compelled  him  to  give  to  him 
in  writing  a  list  of  the  princes  and  elders  of  his  city.;]:  In 
the  law  concerning  the  expiation  of  an  uncertain  murder, 
the  two  boards  are  mentioned  in  connexion,  and  yet  plainly 
distinguished  from  each  other ;  for  it  is  said,  "  Thy  elders  and 
thy  judges  shall  come  forth. "§  In  like  manner,  when,  on  the 
return  of  the  Jews  from  Babylon,  the  matter  concerning  the 
unlawful  marriages  was  in  hand,  "  the  elders  of  every  city 
and  the  judges  thereof"  are  related  to  have  appeared,  with 
the  transgressors,  before  "  the  rulers  of  all  the  congregation."! 
The  author  of  the  book  of  Judith  sj^eaks  of  a  council  of  an- 
cients in  Bethulia,  and  of  three  mayors,  or  governors,  to 
whom  the  executive  function  was  committed.  He  also  men- 
tions one  of  the  governors,  Ozias,  as  having  made  a  feast  to 
the  elders.l" 

To  these   municipal  assemblies  it  belonged  to  direct  the 
public  affairs  of  the  cities  by  their  council  and  authority,  and 

*  Deut.  xsi.  1  seqq.     Judg.  si.  5,  6,  11.  viii.  6,  14.     Ruth  iv.  4,  9.     Ez- 
ra X.  14,  and  many  other  scriptures, 
t  Deut.  xvi.  18.  J  Judg.  viii.  6,  14.  |  Deut.  xxi.  2. 

II  Ezra  X.  14.  ^  Judith  vi.  14^21. 


634  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

to  interpret  the  law  in  whatever  related  to  the  interests  of 
their  respective  cantons.  Salvador'^  thinks,  that  like  the 
censors  at  Rome  and  the  ancients  of  Sparta  and  Athens,  they 
watched  over  the  public  manners  and  morals.  Seated  with- 
out parade  at  the  city  gate,  or  beneath  the  shade  of  trees, 
they  lent  the  ear,  he  says,  to  the  aggrieved  citizens,  to  the 
weeping  wife,  to  the  oppressed  slave,  to  the  poor,  the  stran- 
ger, the  orphan,  and  the  widow.  If  their  complaints  admitted 
of  legal  redress,  they  proclaimed  and  enforced  the  law;  if 
not,  they  became  the  counsellors  and  comforters  of  the  af- 
flicted. By  their  efforts,  a  rigorous  father  was  softened ;  a 
wandering  son  was  reclaimed  and  brought  back  to  the  paternal 
mansion  ;  and  families,  rent  by  discord,  were  re-united  in  peace. 
On  the  sacred  days,  the  presence  of  the  rulers,  reverently  listen- 
ing to  the  reading  of  the  law  and  the  exhortations  of  the  orators, 
impressed  upon  the  youthful  citizens  the  importance  of  the 
subjects  handled,  and  communicated  to  the  assemblies  a  calm, 
thoughtful,  and  dignified  air. 

Thus  flowed  the  current  of  affairs,  during  those  long  pe- 
riods of  repose  enjoyed  by  Israel,  despite  the  powerful 
enemies  by  which  the  nation  was  surrounded.  Such  was  the 
simple  but  energetic  polity,  which  impressed  upon  the  soul  of 
the  Hebrews  memories  never  to  be  effaced,  and  which,  in 
spite  of  many  odious  actions,  produced  by  the  barbarism  of 
the  times,  imparts  a  charm  to  their  sacred  books,  unknown  to 
other  compositions;  a  charm,  which  neither  distance  of  time 
nor  diversity  of  manners  has  power  to  dissolve,  or  evvd  to 
weaken. 

*  Hist,  des  Inst,  de  Moise  1.  2.  c.  2. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENI    HEBREWS.  535 


CHAPTEE  IV. 

The  Hebrew  Chief  Magistrate. 

Moses  3id  not,  by  an  express  law,  unalterably  determine  in 
what  sort  of  magistrate  the  supreme  executive  authority  of  the 
Israelitish  state  should  be  lodged.  On  the  contrary,  he  pro- 
vided beforehand,  in  his  constitution,  for  a  change  in  the  form 
of  the  government  and  the  title  and  prerogatives  of  its  head, 
without  subjecting  the  nation  to  the  horrors  of  a  civil  war. 
And  the  change  from  the  republican  to  the  regal  form  was, 
in  a  subsequent  age,  actually  accomplished  without  bloodshed 
or  commotion,  an  event  hardly  paralleled  by  any  other  in  his- 
tory. Still,  Moses  was  far  from  being  indifferent  in  regard 
to  the  name  and  powers  of  the  civil  head  of  the  state.  His 
chief  magistrate  wao  a  republican  president,  who  had  the 
title  of  judge,  or  rather,  as  Jahn  says,  governor,  and  was 
elective  by  the  people. 

A  strange  notion  in  regard  to  the  chief  magistracy  of  Israel 
has  been  entertained  by  several  very  learned  authors ;  viz. 
that  it  was  the  design  of  Moses,  that  the  nation  should,  if 
possible,  do  without  a  chief  executive  officer.  Such  appears 
to  have  been  the  opinion  of  Harrington,*  Fleury,f  Lewis,:}: 

*  Commonwealth  of  Israel,  C.  3. 

•\  Manners  of  the  Ancient  Israelites,  C.  23. 

X  Antiquities  of  the  Heb.  Rep.  B.  1,  C.  4.  ^ 


SS6  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

MicLaelis,*  Smith, f  and  Dupin4  Tlieir  idea  would  seem 
to  have  been,  tliat,  considering  how  difficult  it  is  to  control 
power  once  entrusted  to  the  hands  of  an  individual,  the  law- 
giver of  Israel  wished  to  have  the  ends  of  an  executive  an- 
swered in  his  republic,  without  setting  apart  a  single  person 
for  that  tempting  distinction,  trusting  that,  on  emergencies, 
men  would  appear,  who  could  discharge  the  duty  required 
by  the  occasion,  without  any  other  commission,  than  their 
own  preeminent  qualifications,  instinctively  acknowledged  by 
the  public  voice.  In  the  view  of  these  writers,  the  judges 
were  all  extraordinary  magistrates,  not  unlike  the  dictators 
in  ancient  Rome. 

I  have  called  this  a  strange  opinion,  because  a  state  without 
a  chief  magistrate,  is  as  monstrous  as  a  body  without  a  head. 
But  I  must  add,  that,  notwithstanding  the  great  names,  by 
which  it  is  supported,  it  appears  to  me  wholly  without  foun- 
dation. If  I  look  either  to  the  conduct  or  the  laws  of  Moses, 
I  can  discover  no  ground  for  such  an  idea.  Let  us  first  take 
his  acts  for  our  guide  in  the  study  of  this  point.  Moses  him- 
self was,  unquestionably,  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  Hebrew 
state.  Now,  when  he  had  finished  his  course,  and  the  time 
of  his  departure  was  at  hand,  about  to  yield  up  the  authority, 
which  he  had  so  long  and  usefully  exercised,  he  was  mainly 
anxious  to  provide  a  suitable  successor  in  that  office ;  a  man 
of  courage,  prudence,  piety,  and  other  needful  gifts  of  gov- 
ernment.§  He  was  to  be  one,  who  should  go  out  and  come 
in  before  them ;  that  is,  he  was  to  have  the  command  of  their 
armies  in  war,  and  the  direction  of  their  civil  affairs  in  peace. 
As  to  the  opinion,  that  tliis  was  to  be  an  extraordinary  ma- 
gistracy, it  is  pure  assumption.  No  intimation  is  given, 
that  it  was  to  last  only  during  the  conquest  and  settlement  of 
Canaan.  The  reason  assigned  by  Moses  for  his  anxiety  in 
the  matter,  viz.  that  the  congregation  of  Jehovah  be  not  as 

*  Comment,  on  the  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  53.         f  Hebrew  People,  C.  3. 
X  Hist,  of  the  Can)n.  B.  1,  C.  3.  §  Numb.xxvii.  15-17. 


LAWS   OF   THE   Al^CIENT    HEBREWS.  537 

slieep  that  have  no  shepherd,  seems  to  me  to  settle  the 
question  beyond  doubt  or  cavil.  Sheep  without  a  shepherd 
would  be  as  appropriate  a  symbol  of  Israel  without  a  chief 
magistrate  after  the  settlement  of  Canaan,  as  before  it.  This 
reason  for  the  office  of  leader  or  head,  viz.  its  great  usefulness 
or  importance  to  the  well-being  of  the  body  politic,  which  are 
inherent  and  permanent  qualities,  stamps  it  as  an  essential 
and  standing  part  of  the  constitution.  And  this  is  conform- 
able to  the  general  sentiment  and  practice  of  mankind.  The 
wisest  nations  have  ever  deemed  it  convenient  to  have  a  first 
magistrate,  either  hereditary  or  elective,  either  for  life  or  a 
term  of  years,  who  should  be  the  commander  in  chief  of  their 
armies,  and  who  should  preside  over  the  civil  administration. 
No  otherwise  can  the  force  of  a  nation  be  properly  emj)loyed 
for  its  protection,  and  its  laws  duly  executed. 

But,  again,  if  we  look  at  the  laws  of  Moses,  we  shall  come 
to  the  same  conclusion,  viz.  that  the  opinion  I  am  combatting 
is  without  any  solid  foundation.  Michaelis*  says  truly,  that 
Moses  gave  no  law,  imposing  an  obligation  on  the  people  to 
choose  one  universal  magistrate  of  the  whole  nation.  Yet  he 
at  least  does  that  which  is  equivalent ;  he  manifestly  takes  it 
for  granted,  that  the  nation  would  have  such  a  magistrate. 
Thus  in  Deut.  17  :  9,  the  judge  of  the  whole  republic  is  men- 
tioned in  connexion  with  the  high  priest ;  and  that,  not  as  a 
military,  but  as  a  civil  functionary.  In  the  twelfth  veree  of 
the  same  chapter,  the  word  judge  is  used  as  a  title  of  supreme 
authority,  A  still  more  decisive  passage  occurs  in  2  Sam. 
7  :  11.  It  is  an  address,  which  Jehovah,  by  the  mouth  of  the 
prophet  Nathan,  made  to  king  David,  concerning  his  inten- 
tion to  build  him  a  house.  The  divine  speaker,  in  a  distinct 
allusion  to  the  chief  magistrates  of  Israel,  prior  to  the  institu- 
tion of  monarchy,  says  expressly :  "  I  commanded  judges  to 
be  over  my  people  Israel."  Upon  the  whole,  there  can  be 
no  reasc  nable  dorbt,  that,  as  the  Lacedaemonians  had  their 

*  Art.  53. 


538  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

kings,  the  Athenians  their  archons,  and  the  E.  mans  their 
consuls,  so,  according  to  the  constitution  of  Moses,  the  He- 
brews were  to  have  tlieir  general  judges,  or  governors  of  the 
whole  republic.  As  to  what  is  alleged  by  some,  as  a  ground 
of  belief  that  Moses  did  not  intend  to  have  an  unbroken  suc- 
cession of  chief  magistrates,  that,  prior  to  the  establishment 
of  monarchy,  there  were  times,  when  the  nation  was  without 
a  civil  head,  and  that  the  authority  of  some  of  the  judges  did 
not  extend  to  all  Israel,  but  was  limited  to  particular  tribes, 
that  is  undoubtedly  true.  But  it  is  a  fact,  which  may  be 
accounted  for  on  more  rational  grounds,  than  the  theory  of 
these  writers.  It  was  the  result  of  a  neglect,  rather  than  an 
observance,  of  the  Mosaic  constitution  ;  a  neglect,  in  all  pro- 
bability, occasioned  by  the  jealous  rivalry  between  the  dif- 
ferent tribes,  as  explained  in  the  last  chapter. 

In  order  to  a  just  understanding  of  the  frame  and  operation 
of  the  Hebrew  government,  it  is  material  to  inquire,  both 
what  were  the  powers,  and  what  the  limitations  of  power, 
appertaining  to  this  magistracy.  If  v;e  would  conceive  justly 
of  the  office,  we  must  study  it,  as  it  was  instituted  and  exer- 
cised by  Moses  and  Joshua,  in  whose  history  alone  we  may 
expect  to  find  an  gxact  and  true  account  of  it,  since,  after  the 
death  of  the  latter,  this  part  of  the  constitution  was  very  soon 
altered  or  neglected,  there  being  no  regent  or  judge  in  the 
land.* 

The  supreme  authority  of  the  Hebrew  state  was  in  Jehovah. 
God  himself  was  properly  king  of  Israel.  "With  respect  to 
this  divine  king,  Moses,  as  Conringiusf  says,  might  not  im- 
properly be  called  his  viceroy.  It  is  evident  from  the  whole 
history,  and  therefore  particular  citations  are  not  necessary  to 
prove,  that  Moses  was  clothed  with  very  ample  powers.  He 
had  aitithority  to  convene  the  states-general  of  Israel,  to  pre- 
side over  their  deliberations,  to  command  the  army,  to  appoint 
officers,  and  to  hear  and  decide  civil  causes. 

*  Judg.  xix.  1.  j  De  Rep.  Haebr.  p.  249,  cited  by  Lowman,  C.  10. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBKEWS.  539 

But  it  may  be  alleged,  and  it  is  certainly  true,  that  Moses 
had  an  authority  depending,  in  a  peculiar  manner,  on  God 
himself.  Let  us,^  therefore,  look  at  this  office  of  chief  magis- 
trate, as  exercised  by  Joshua.  We  find  a  somewhat  detailed 
account  of  it,  in  the  narrative  of  his  appointment  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  Moses.  The  historian  says  :*  "  And  the  Lord  said 
unto  Moses,  Take  thee  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  a  man  in  whom 
is  the  spirit,  and  lay  thine  hand  upon  him :  and  set  him 
before  Eleazar  the  priest,  and  before  all  the  congregation  :  and 
give  him  a  charge  in  their  sight.  And  thou  shalt  put  some 
of  thine  honor  upon  him,  that  all  the  congregation  of  the 
children  of  Israel  may  be  obedient.  And  he  shall  staad 
before  Eleazar  the  j^riest,  who  shall  ask  counsel  for  him  after 
the  judgment  of  urim  before  the  Lord  :  at  his  word  shall  they 
go  out,  and  at  his  word  they  shall  come  in,  both  he,  and  all 
the  children  of  Israel  with  him,  even  all  the  congregation. 
And  Moses  did  as  the  Lord  commanded  him :  and  )ie  took 
Joshua,  and  set  him  before  Eleazar  the  priest,  and  before  all 
the  congregation.  And  he  laid  his  hands  upon  him,  and  gave 
him  a  charge,  as  the  Lord  commanded  by  the  hand  of  Moses." 

"We  learn,  still  more  clearly,  the  nature  of  this  part  of  the 
Hebrew  constitution,  from  the  history  of  Joshua's  accession 
to  the  government.  "  Now,  after  the  death  of  Moses,  the 
servant  of  the  Lord,  it  came  to  pass,  that  the  Lord  spake  unto 
Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  Moses's  minister,"!  The  object  of 
this  address  was  to  encourage  him  to  take  upon  himself  the 
government  of  the  Israelites.:]:  Thereupon  the  new  regent 
immediately  issues  his  orders  :§  "  Then  Joshua  commanded 
the  officers  of  the  people,  saying,  Pass  through  the  host  and 
command  the  people,  saying,  Prepare  you  victuals  :  for  within 
three  days  ye  shall  pass  over  this  Jordan,  to  go  in  to  possess 
the  land  which  the  Lord  your  God  giveth  you  to  possess  it." 
Then  he  summoned  the  tribes,  who  had  received  their  inherit- 

*  Numb,  xxvii.  18-23.  f  Josh.  i.  1.  J  Ibid.  i.  2-9. 

§  Ibid.  i.  10,  11. 


54:0  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

ance  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  directed  them  to  accompany 
their  brethren,  and  assist  them  in  taking  possession  of  their 
portion  on  the  western  side  of  that  river.*  Their  reply  was 
remarkable,  and  deserves  to  be  inserted  at  length;  as  we 
distinctly  see  from  it  their  conception  of  the  nature  and 
extent  of  the  authority,  which  was  vested  in  Joshua : — f 
"And  they  answered  Joshua,  saying.  All  that  thou  com- 
mandest  us,  we  will  do,  and  whithersoever  thou  sendest  us, 
we  will  go.  According  as  we  hearkened  unto  Moses  in  all 
things,  so  will  we  hearken  unto  thee  :  only  the  Lord  thy  God 
be  with  thee,  as  he  was  with  Moses.  Whosoever  he  be  that 
doth  rebel  against  thy  commandment,  and  will  not  hearken 
unto  thy  words  in  all  that  thou  commandest  him,  he  shall  be 
put  to  death  :  only  be  strong  and  of  a  good  courage." 

These  are  the  principal  passages,  relating  to  the  office  of 
chief  magistrate  among  the  Hebrews,  as  it  was  exemplified 
in  the  history  of  the  first  two  judges.  A  critical  analysis  of 
them  establishes  several  important  conclusions. 

1.  The  Hebrew  judges  held  their  office  for  life.  There  was- 
unquestionably,  a  disadvantage  attendant  upon  this  arrange- 
ment. On  the  death  of  a  judge,  the  supreme  executive  au- 
thority ceased.  This  often  led  to  anarchy,  or  at  least  to  great 
disorders,  in  consequence  of  a  delay  in  electing  a  successor. 
In  virtue  of  the  English  maxim  of  law,  that  the  king  never 
dies,  all  the  rights  of  the  sovereign,  on  his  demise,  instantly 
vest  in  his  heir.  Perhaps,  however,  the  disadvantage,  result- 
ing from  the  adoption  of  the  opposite  princijile  in  the  Hebrew 
polity,  was  more  than  counterbalanced,  by  its  preventing  a  de- 
generate heir,  or  successor,  from  giving  to  idolatry  the  support 
of  his  influence.:}: 

2.  The  office  was  not  hereditary.  Moses  took  no  steps  to 
perpetuate  this  magistracy  in  his  family,  or  to  leave  it  as  an 
hereditary  honor  to  his  posterity.  He  did  not  even  seek  to 
confine  it  within  his  own  tribe.     All  he  desired,  in  his  suc- 

*  Josh.  i.  12-15.      t  Ibid.  i.  16-18.       J  Jahn's  Heb.  Com.  B.  3.  S.  22, 


LAWS   OF   THE  AI^CrENT   HEBKEWS.  541 

cesser,  was  a  man  fit  for  the  office ;  a  man,  in  wliom  was  the 
spirit  of  prudence,  courage,  and  the  fear  of  God,  with  all  the 
other  gifts  of  government,  necessary  in  an  upright,  patriotic, 
zealous,  and  able  chief  magistrate.  Joshua,  the  immediate 
successor  of  Moses,  was  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  ;  Othniel 
was  of  Judah  ;  Ehud,  of  Benjamin  ;  Deborah,  of  J^aphtali ; 
Gideon,  of  Manasseh ;  and  Samuel,  of  Levi.  The  other 
judges  were  of  several  different  tribes  ;  and,  they  being  dead, 
their  children  remained  among  the  common  people ;  and  we 
hear  no  more  of  them.  "  Let  the  supreme  authority  be  given 
to  the  worthiest,"  is  the  voice  of  reason.  "  Let  the  suj)reme 
authority  be  given  to  the  worthiest,"  is  echoed  back  by  the 
Mosaic  constitution,  as  face  answers  to  face  in  water,  and  the 
heart  of  man  to  man. 

3.  The  chief  magistracy  of  Israel  was  elective.  The  oracle, 
the  high  priest,  and  all  the  congregation,  are  distinctly  re- 
corded to  have  concurred  in  the  elevation  of  Joshua  to  this 
office.*  Jephthah  was  chosen  to  the  chief  magistracy  by  the 
pojDular  voice.f  Samuel  was  elected  regent  in  a  general 
assembly  of  Israel.:}:  And,  for  aught  that  appears,  the  other 
judges  were  raised  to  this  office  by  the  free,  unsolicited  choice 
of  the  people. 

4,  The  authority  of  these  regents  extended  to  affairs  of  war 
and  peace.  They  were  commanders  in  chief  of  the  military 
forces  of  the  Israelites,  and  chief  judges  in  civil  causes.  That 
Moses  united  these  functions  in  his  person,  is  undisputed. 
He  administered  justice,  as  well  as  commanded  armies. 
That  Joshua  did  the  same,  that  his  authority  was,  in  these 
particulars,  of  an  equal  extent,  is  also  clear.  Moses  was  di- 
rected to  put  some  of  his  honor  upon  him,  that  all  the  con- 
gregation of  the  children  of  Israel  might  be  obedient.§  What 
does  this  mean,  but  that,  as  suggested  by  bishop  Patrick, 
Moses  communicated  to  Joshua  some  of  his  own  authority, 

*  Numb,  xxviii.  19,  22.  f  Judg.  xi.  4-11.  , 

X  1  Sam.  vii.  5-8.  §  Numb,  xxviii.  20.  ^ 


542  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

and  made  him  an  associate  in  the  government?  But  the 
point  is  yet  clearer  from  the  words,  in  which  the  trans- 
jordanic  tribes  recognized  Joshua's  authority  :  "  All  that  thou 
commandest  us  we  will  do,  and  whithersoever  thou  sendest 
lis  we  will  go.  According  as  we  hearkened  unto  Moses 
in  all  things,  so  will  we  hearken  unto  thee."*  This  is  ex- 
plicit and  unequivocal.  The  authority  of  Joshua  was  co- 
extensive with  that  of  Moses,  and  comprehended  civil  as  well 
as  military  affairs.  Most  of  the  succeeding  judges  had  been 
at  the  head  of  armies ;  had  delivered  their  country  from 
foreign  oppression  ;  and  were  elevated  to  the  chief  magistracy 
in  reward  of  their  military  exploits.  Eli  and  Samuel,  how- 
ever, certainly  were  not  military  men.  Deborah  was  judge, 
and  held  her  court  under  a  palm  tree,  before  she  planned  the 
war  against  Jabin.f  Of  Jair,  Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon,  it  is 
uncertain  whether  they  ever  held  any  military  command. 
The  judges  are  mentioned  in  the  Mosaic  law,  in  connection 
with  the  high  priest,  as  arbiters  of  civil  controversies.:}:  The 
command  of  the  army  cannot,  therefore,  be  considered  as  the 
peculiar,  much  less  the  exclusive  function  of  these  magis- 
trates. They  appear  rather  to  have  been  appointed  for  the 
general  administration  of  public  affairs.  It  is  true,  that  mar- 
tial achievements  were,  in  several  instances,  the  means,  by 
which  men  raised  themselves  to  the  rank  of  judges  ;  but  the 
present  inquiry  is,  not  how  the  office  was  obtained,  but  for 
what  ends  it  was  instituted.§ 

The  authority  of  the  judge  was,  without  doubt,  very  great. 
As  general,  he  had  the  chief  command  of  the  army ;  as  civil 
head  of  the  state,  he  convened  the  senate  and  congregation, 
presided  in  those  assemblies,  proj^osed  the  public  business, 
exercised  a  powerful  influence  over  their  deliberations,  and, 
in  all  things,  acted  as  viceroy  of  Jehovah,  the  invisible  king 
of  Israel.     He  was  the  fountain  of  justice,  and  the  executive 

*  Josh.  i.  16,  17.  t  Judg.  iv.  4,  5.  %  I^eut.  svii.  9,  12. 

§  Jahn's  Heb.  Com.  B.  3,  S.  22 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  643 

power   of    the   government   was   principally  lodged    in    his 
hands.''*' 

5.  A  contumacious  resistance  of  the  lawful  authority  and 
orders  of  the  Hebrew  judges,  was  treason.  This  is  plain 
from  the  address  of  the  eastern  tribes  to  Joshua,  in  formally 
recognizing  him  as  the  head  of  the  nation,  and  promising  al- 
legiance to  his  government.  "  Whosoever  he  be,"  they  say, 
"  that  doth  rebel  against  thy  commandment,  and  will  not 
hearken  unto  thy  words,  in  all  that  thou  commandest  him,  he 
shall  be  put  to  death,"f  It  is,  perhaps,  still  plainer  from 
Deut.  17:  12  :  "The  man  that  will  do  presumptuously,  and 
will  not  hearken  unto  *  *  *  *  the  judge,  even  that  man  shall 
die."  And  this  was  consonant  to  reason  and  justice ;  for, 
the  chief  authority,  both  in  military  and  civil  affairs,  being 
vested  in  him,  he  embodied  and  represented  the  majesty  of 
the  state.  Rebellion  against  him  was  rebellion  against  the 
supreme  power.  It  was  a  violation  of  all  order  and  govern- 
ment, an  attempt  to  frustrate  the  will  of  the  nation,  an  act  of 
mutiny  and  sedition ;  offences,  which,  in  all  governments, 
have  been  regarded  and  treated  as  capital  crimes. 

6.  The  authority  of  the  Israelitish  regents  was  not  unlimi- 
ted and  despotic.  It  was  tempered  and  restrained  by  the 
oracle.  This  is  distinctly  affirmed,  in  the  history  of  the 
appointment  of  Joshua  to  the  chief  magistracy,  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  Moses.:};  It  is  there  said,  that  he  should  stand 
before  Eleazar  the  priest,  who  should  ask  counsel  for  him, 
after  the  judgment  of  urim  before  the  Lord.  This  implies  an 
obligation  to  follow  the  counsel,  when  given.  This  nse  of 
the  oracle  throws  light  on  some  parts  of  the  Hebrew  history, 
which  are  commonly  not  well  understood.  In  particular,  it 
suggests  the  reason  why  the  Israelites  were  so  often  conquered 
and  oppressed  by  their  enemies.  It  was  either  because  of 
tneir  rashness  in  trusting  to  their  own  wisdom,  without  asking 

*  Lowm.  on  Civ  Gov.  Heb.  C,  10. 

f  Josh.  i.  18.  I  Numb,  xxvii.  21. 


S44  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

counsel  of  the  oracle,  or  because  of  their  neglect  to  follow  the 
counsels,  which  thej  received  from  it.  In  either  case,  the 
behavior  of  the  Hebrews  could  not  be  otherwise  than  highly 
criminal,  under  this  constitution  ;  and,  of  course,  highly  pro- 
voking to  their  divine  king.  The  power  of  the  Hebrew  chief 
magistrates  was  further  limited  by  that  of  the  senate  and 
congregation.  In  ordinary  cases,  it  would  seem,  they  were 
not  bound  to  consult  the  states-general.  It  was  enough,  if 
these  did  not  remonstrate  against  the  measures  of  the  judge  ; 
a  procedure  to  which  they  were  by  no  means  backward  in  re- 
sorting, whenever,  in  their  judgment,  occasion  required  it. 
But,  in  important  emergencies,  they  summoned  a  general 
assembly  of  the  rulers,  to  ask  their  advice  and  consent.  This 
we  find  to  have  been  repeatedly  done  by  Moses,  Joshua,  and 
Samuel. 

Still  another  limitation  to  the  authority  of  the  Hebrew 
judges  was  in  the  law  itself.  Their  power  could  not  be 
stretched  beyond  its  legal  bounds.  This  is  pretty  plainly  in- 
timated, in  the  address  of  the  people  to  Joshua,  on  his 
accession  to  the  chief  magistracy.  They  say,  in  effect,  that 
they  would  be  obedient  to  him,  provided  he  himself  would 
obey  the  law  of  Jehovah,  and  follow  the  path  traced  out  by 
his  servant  Moses.'^  This  magistracy  was  always  in  subjec- 
tion to  the  law,  nor,  as  far  as  appears  from  the  history,  did 
any  of  the  judges  ever  abuse  the  power  committed  to  them, 
unless  we  except  G-ideon,  who,  through  his  own  superstition, 
gave  some  slight  encouragement  to  idolatry.  As  it  is  a  max- 
im of  the  British  monarchy,  that  the  law  raaketh  the  king,f 
so  it  was  a  principle  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  that  the 
law  made  the  judge  ;  and  as,  under  the  English  constitution,  he 
is  not  king,  where  will  and  pleasure  rule,  and  not  the  law  ;f 
so,  under  the  Israelitish  constitution,  he  would  not  long  have 
continued  judge,  who,  trampling  on  the  law,  should  ,have 
made  his  own  will  the  rule  of  his  administration. 

*  Josh.  i.  17.  t  Blacks.  Comment.  B.  1.  c.  6. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  545 

The  observation  may  appear  singular,  yet  I  believe  it  to  be 
true,  that  the  constitution  of  Carthago  throws  light  on  this 
part  of  the  constitution  of  Israel.  "  The  history  of  the  Cartha- 
ginians," observes  Michaclis,*  "  will  here  assist  us  in  forming 
more  accurate  ideas  of  this  chief  magistrate  of  the  Israelitish 
republic,  and  in  comparing  his  office  with  a  well  known  Eu- 
ro[X3an  one.  In  the  Hebrew  language,  a  judge  is  called 
schofet.  The  Carthaginians,  M'ho  wei'e  descendants  of  the 
Tyrians,  and  spoke  Hebrew,  called  their  chief  magistrate  by 
that  name.  But  the  Latins,  who  had  no  such  sch,,  as  we 
have,  wrote  the  word  with  a  sharp  <s,  and,  adding  a  Latin  ter- 
mination, denominated  them  sufTetes.  By  the  historian  Livy, 
they  ai  e  compared  to  the  Koman  consuls.  In  book  28,  chap. 
38,  he  says, '  Ad  colloquium  sufietes  eorum,  qui  summus  Poenis 
est  magistratus,  cum  quaestore  elicuit.'  There,  however,  he  is 
speaking,  not  of  the  suifetes  of  the  city  of  Carthage  itself, 
but  of  inferior  ones.  But  in  book  30,  chap.  Y,  he  mentions 
the  former  in  these  words  :  '  Senatum  suffetes,  quod  velut 
consulare  aj)ud  imperium  erat,  vocaverunt.'  Now  such  were 
the  judges  of  Israel,  whose  history  is  recorded  in  the  book 
called  by  their  name." 

No  salary  was  attached  to  the  chief  magistracy  in  the 
Hebrew  government.  No  revenues  were  appropriated  to  the 
judges,  except,  perhaps,  a  larger  share  of  the  spoils  taken  in 
war,  and  the  presents,  spontaneously  made  to  them,  as  testi- 
monials of  respect.f  No  tribute  was  raised  for  them.  They 
had  no  outward  badges  of  dignity.  They  did  not  wear  the 
diadem.  They  were  not  surrounded  by  a  crowd  of  satellites. 
They  were  not  invested  with  the  sovereign  power.;}:  They 
could  issue  orders  ;  but  they  could  not  enact  laws.  They  had 
not  the  right  of  appointing  officers,  except  perhaps  in  the 
army.  They  had  no  power  to  lay  new  burdens  upon  the 
people  in  the  form  of  taxes.     They  were  ministers  of  justice, 

*  Comment.  Art.  53.  f  Judg.  viii.  24.     1  Sam.  ix.  7.  x.  27. 

X  Pastoret,  Histoire  de  la  Legislat.  t.  3.  pp.  79  seqq. 
35 


546  COMMENTAKIES    ON    THE 

protectors  of  law,  defenders  of  religion,  and  avengers  of 
crime  ;  particularly  the  crime  of  idolatry  *  But  their  power 
was  constitutional,  not  arbitrary.  It  was  kept  within  duo 
bounds  by  the  barriers  of  law,  the  decisions  of  the  oracle, 
and  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  senate  and  commons  of 
Israel.  They  were  without  show,  without  ponip,  without 
retinue,  without  equipage ;  plain  republican  magistrates. 
"  They  were  not  only  simple  in  their  manners,  moderate  in 
their  desires,  and  free  from  avarice  and  ambition,  but  noble 
and  magnanimous  men,  who  felt  that  whatever  they  did  for 
their  country,  was  above  all  reward,  and  could  not  be  recom- 
pensed ;  who  desired  merely  to  promote  the  public  good  ; 
and  who  chose  rather  to  deserve  well  of  their  country,  than 
to  be  enriched  by  its  wealth.  This  exalted  patriotism,  like 
every  thing  else  connected  with  politics  in  the  theocratical 
state  of  the  Hebrews,  was  partly  of  a  religious  character ; 
and  those  regents  always  conducted  themselves  as  the  officers 
of  God.  In  all  their  enterprises,  they  relied  upon  him,  and 
their  only  care  was,  that  their  countrymen  should  acknow- 
ledge the  authority  of  Jehovah,  their  invisible  king.  Still, 
they  were  not  without  faults ;  neither  are  they  so  represented 
by  their  historians.  These  relate,  on  the  contrary,  with  the 
utmost  frankness,  the  great  sins,  of  which  some  of  them  were 
guilty.  They  were  not  merely  deliverers  of  the  state  from  a 
foreign  yoke,  but  destroyers  of  idolatry,  foes  of  pagan  vices, 
promoters  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  of  religion,  and  of  mo- 
rality ;  restorers  of  theocracy  in  the  minds  of  the  Hebrews  ; 
and  powerful  instruments  of  divine  providence  in  the  promo- 
tion of  the  great  design  of  preserving  the  Hebrew  consti- 
tution, and,  by  that  means,  of  rescuing  the  true  religion  from 
destruction."f 

Such  was  the  chief  magistrate  of  Israel,  as  created  by  the 
constitution  of  Moses.  It  will  be  interesting  and  not  unim- 
portant, to  inquire  into  the  state  of  the  country,  during  the 

*  Calmet's  Diet.  Art.  Judges.  f  Jahn's  Heb.  Com.  B.  3.  S.  22. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  547 

government  of  the  judges,  Yeiy  grave  errors  on  this  point, 
and  such  as  are  calculated  to  discredit  the  wisdom  of  this 
constitution,  have  been  committed  by  authors,  otherwise 
candid  and  learned.  It  has  been  by  no  means  uncommon  to 
represent  the  four  hundred  and  fifty  years,  during  which  this 
consular  magistracy  lasted,  as  times  of  imbecility,  confusion, 
anarchy,  barbarism,  and  crime.  Harrington  *  speaks  of  ths 
Israelitish  commonwealth,  during  this  period,  as  "  without 
any  sufficient  root  for  the  possible  support  of  it,  or  with  such 
roots  only  as  were  full  of  worms  "  Lowman  f  speaks  of  "  the 
weak  state  of  the  Hebrews,"  and  Smith,  :j:  of  "  the  moral 
and  social  deterioration  of  the  people,"  during  the  same 
period.  Nothing  can  be  more  unfounded,  or  unjust,  than 
such  representations.  This  error  is  probably  grounded  on 
another,  viz.  that  of  regarding  the  book  of  Judges  as  a  com- 
plete history  of  the  times  of  the  judges.  But  such  it  man- 
ifestly is  not.  The  book  is  exceedingly  fragmentary  as  a 
narrative,  being  made  up  rather  of  heads  of  history,  than 
history  itself.  It  is  aptly  characterised  by  Jahn  §  as  "  a  mere 
register  of  diseases,  from  which,  however,  we  have  no  right 
to  conclude,  that  there  were  no  healthy  men,  much  less  that 
there  were  no  healthy  seasons ;  when  the  book  itself,  for  the 
most  part,  mentions  only  a  few  tribes,  in  which  the  epidemic 
prevailed,  and  notices  long  periods,  during  which  it  had 
universally  ceased."  If  any  one  will  attentively  read  over 
the  book  of  Judges,  and  take  the  trouble  to  compare  the 
times  of  oppression  and  adversity  with  those  of  independence 
and  prosperity,  he  will  find  the  duration  of  the  former  less 
than  one-fourth  that  of  the  latter.  The  entire  history  of  one 
hundred  and  twenty  years  of  this  period  is  contained  in 
these  two  brief  records  : — "  The  land  had  rest  forty  years  ;"| 
"the  land  had   rest  four  score  years."!"     Surely,   Othniel, 

*  Commonwealth  of  Israel,  c.  3.  f  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  10. 

X  Heb.  Peop.  c.  3.  ^  Heb.  Com.  B.  3.  S.  23. 

II  Judges  iii.  11.  1[  Ibid.  iii.  30. 


548  JOMMENTAKIES    ON    THE 

Ebud,  and  Shamgar  must  have  governed  with  prudence  and 
ability,  since  all  the  time  of  their  administration  was  pros- 
perous and  peaceable,  both  within  and  without.  It  is  quite 
apparent,  therefore,  that  the  Israelites  experienced  much 
more  of  prosperity  than  of  adversity  in  the  time  of  the 
judges.  Under  their  government,  the  nation  enjoyed  periods 
of  repose,  happiness,  and  plenty,  of  which  the  history  of 
other  ancient  nations  affords  but  few  examples.  Wherefore, 
then,  change  the  republican  to  the  regal  form  ?  Pride  and 
folly  prompted  the  revolution ;  a  revolution,  soon  repented 
of  with  bitter  but  unavailing  regrets;  a  revolution,  in  which 
lay  buried  the  seeds  of  despotism  and  ultimate  dissolution. 

This  magistracy  of  judge,  regent,  or  consul,  was  the  true 
primitive  arrangement  of  the  Hebrew  constitution.  This  the 
wisdom  of  the  divine  lawgiver  appointed  as  one  of  the  bonds, 
whereby  the  tribes  w^ere  to  be  united  in  the  power  of  their 
arms,  in  their  national  councils,  and  in  the  administration  of 
justice.  If  Moses,  in  framing  his  polity,  had  stopped  here,  it 
would  have  been  necessary  for  any  one,  in  analyzing  and  de- 
scribing it,  to  arrest  himself  at  the  same  point.  But  since  he 
provided  for  the  establishment  of  the  regal  form  of  govern- 
ment among  the  Hebrews,  whenever  they  should  tire  of  re- 
publican simplicity,  and  since  he  enacted  a  fundamental  law 
•  to  define  and  limit  the  power  of  the  future  kings,  the  study 
of  the  Hebrew  chief  magistracy  involves  an  examination  of 
the  regal  office ;  nor  would  the  analysis  of  the  Mosaic  con- 
stitution be  complete  without  it.  To  this  labor,  therefore,  I 
now  address  myself. 

The  law,  referred  to  in  the  last  paragraph,  is  in  these 
words  : — 

"  When  thou  art  come  into  the  land,  which  the  Lord 
thy  God  giveth  thee,  and  shalt  possess  it,  and  shalt  dwell 
therein,  and  shalt  say,  I  will  set  a  king  over  me,  like  as  all 
the  nations  that  are  about  me  :  Thou  shalt  in  any  wise  set 
him  king  over  thee  whom  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  choose : 
one  from  among  thy  brethren  shalt  thou  set  king  over  thee ; 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  649 

tlioii  mayest  not  set  a  stranger  over  thee,  which  is  not  thy 
brother/  But  he  shall  not  multiply  horses  to  himself,  nor 
cause  the  people  to  return  to  Egypt,  to  the  end  that  he  should 
multiply  horses :  forasmuch  as  the  Lord  hath  said  unto  you, 
Ye  shall  henceforth  return  no  more  that  way.  Neither  shall 
he  multiply  wives  to  himself,  that  his  heart  turn  not  away  : 
neither  shall  he  greatly  multiply  to  himself  silver  and  gold. 
And  it  shall  be  M'hen  he  sitteth  upon  the  throne  of  his  king- 
dom, that  he  shall  write  him  a  copy  of  this  law  in  a  book  out 
of  that  which  is  before  the  priests  the  Levites.  And  it  shall 
be  with  him,  and  he  shall  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his 
life  :  that  he  may  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  his  God,  to  keep  all 
the  words  of  this  law  and  these  statutes,  to  do  them  :  that 
his  heart  be  not  lifted  up  above  his  brethren,  and  tiiat  he 
turn  not  aside  from  the  commandment  to  the  right  hand  or  to 
the  left :  to  the  end  that  he  may  prolong  his  days  in  his  king- 
dom, he,  and  his  children,  in  the  midst  of  Israel."* 

Agreeably  to  the  provisions  of  this  enactment,  the  nation 
was  at  liberty,  whenever  it  thought  fit,  to  institute  the  regal 
form  of  government ;  the  king  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  con- 
current voice  of  the  people  and  the  oracle ;  the  sovereign 
must  be  a  native  Israelite  ;  the  multiplication  of  horses  was 
interdicted  to  him ;  he  was  not  to  have  many  wives  ;  he 
might  not  accumulate  and  hoard  large  treasures  ;  he  was  to 
be  the  defender  of  religion  ;  the  law  must  be  the  rule  of  his 
government ;  he  must  regard  his  people  as  brethren  and 
equals ;  and,  upon  these  conditions,  the  throne  was  to  be  he- 
reditary in  his  family.  I  propose  briefly  to  illustrate  each  ot 
these  particulars. 

1.  Monarchy  was  permitted  to  the  Israelites.  Moses  was 
not  ignorant  of  the  temper  of  the  orientals.  He  knew  their 
strong  propensity  to  kingly  government,  which,  at  a  later 
period  in  the  world's  history,  was  remarked  by  the  Greeks 
and  Romans.  He  well  understood,  also,  the  general  muta 
bility  of  human  affairs.  On  these  grounds,  he  anticipated, 
and  the  law  under  consideration  presupposes,  what  afterwards 
took  place,  a  desire  in  the  Hebrew  people  to  have  a  king,  in 

*  Deut.  xvii.  14-20. 


550  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

imitation  of  the  polity  of  otlier  eastern  nations.  For  the  gra- 
tification of  this  desire  in  a  peaceful  way,  Moses  provided  in 
this  law.  Among  the  immediate  causes  of  this  change  in  the 
Hebrew  constitution,  we  may  probably,  without  error,  enu- 
merate the  effeminacy  and  cowardice  of  the  people,  the 
disunion  and  jealousy  of  the  tribes,  the  formidable  power  of 
the  Ammonites  and  the  Philistines,  from  whose  incursions 
the  eastern  and  southern  tribes  were  constant  sufierers,  the 
fear  that,  after  the  death  of  Samuel,  being  left  without  a 
supreme  regent,  and  consequently  becoming  disunited,  they 
would  fall  a  prey  to  these  terrible  enemies,  the  degeneracy  of 
Samuel's  sons,  the  example  of  all  their  neighbors,  the  idea 
of  the  greater  respectability  of  a  nation  with  a  king  at  its 
head,  the  desire  or  the  necessity  of  being  always  ready  for 
war,  a  want  of  faith  and  constancy  in  the  Hebrew  mind, 
and,  more  than  all  perhaps,  a  weak  longing  after  the  pomp 
and  glitter  of  royalty.  But,  whatever  the  cause  might  be, 
the  change  was  made.  It  conduces  not  a  little  to  the  honor 
of  the  Hebrews,  that  they  effected  it  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  of  theocracy,  and  without  bloodshed.  This  is  a 
clear  proof,  that  the  time  of  the  judges  was  neither  an  im- 
pious nor  a  barbarous  age.* 

2.  The  right  of  election  was  left  to  the  people ;  subject  to 
this  limitation,  however,  that  they  were  not  to  appoint  any 
one  as  king,  who  was  not  chosen  by  God.  At  first  view,  the 
two  parts  of  this  proposition  appear  contradictory  to  each 
other.  But  the  difiiculty  vanishes,  when  it  is  understood  as 
simply  implying,  that  the  oracle  and  the  states-general  must 
concur  in  the  choice.  In  some  of  our  state  legislatures. 
United  States  senators  are  elected  by  a  separate  vote  of  each 
house,  in  which  case  the  two  houses  must  be  of  accord,  or 
there  is  no  election.  The  case  was  analogous  in  the  election 
of  an  Israelitish  sovereign.  The  people  and  the  oracle  must 
concur.     A  fair  interpretation  of  the  statute  itself  will  lead 

*  Jahn's  Ileb.  Com.  B.  3,  ss.  24,  25.  Mich.  Comment.  Art.  54. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  551 

to  this  conclusion.  "Tiiou  slialt  in  any  wise  set  hira  king 
over  thee,  whom  the  Lord  thv  God  shall  choose  :  one  from 
among  thy  brethren  shalt  thou  set  over  thee :  thou  mayest 
not  set  a  stranger  over  thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother."* 
That  the  oracle  was  to  be  consulted  in  the  election,  this  passage 
places  beyond  doubt.  That  the  people  also  were  to  have  a 
voice  in  the  transaction,  it  makes  almost  equally  clear.  The 
earnest  cautions,  addressed  to  them  in  reference  to  the  choice 
of  a  sovereign,  would  be  absurd,  if  all  liberty  of  action  were 
absolutely  taken  from  them,  and  they  were  simply  to  receive 
one,  arbitrarily  imposed  upon  them  by  the  will  of  another. 

But  the  meaning  of  the  statute  may  be  best  studied  in  the 
actual  api^lication  of  it.  In  this,  as  in  other  instances,  the 
history  throws  light  upon  the  code.  In  regard  to  the  institu- 
tion of  the  monarchy,  and  Saul's  elevation  to  the  throne,  let 
any  one  attentively  read  that  part  of  the  first  book  of  Samuel, 
which  is  contained  in  chaps.  8-11,  and  he  will  find  set  forth 
in  it  the  following  facts.  Samuel  convoked  the  general  diet 
of  Israel  at  Mizpeh.  There,  after  recounting  the  Lord's  past 
mercies  to  them,  he  reminded  them,  that  in  demanding  a 
king,  they  had  rejected  Jehovah ;  who  had  himself  saved 
them  out  of  all  their  adversities.  He  then  called  them  to 
present  themselves  before  the  Lord  by  their  tribes.  On  the 
application  of  the  sacred  lot,  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  was  taken. 
Afterward,  in  a  similar  manner,  the  family  of  Matri  was 
taken  ;  and  then,  in  the  same  way,  Saul,  the  son  of  Kish,  was 
selected.  Samuel  then  presented  the  nominee  of  the  oracle 
to  the  representatives  of  the  people  for  their  approval  and 
confirmation.  Many  of  them,  probably  a  majority,  gave  an 
affirmative  vote.  But  a  powerful  minority  opposed  his  inves- 
titure with  the  royal  authority,  on  the  ground,  that  they  did 
not  believe  him  possessed  of  suflicient  military  talent  and 
experience  to  lead  the  Israelitish  armies  to  victory.  The  nar- 
rative inclines  me  to  think,  that  Saul  was  not  inaugurated  and 

*  Deut.  xvii.  15. 


552  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

invested  with  the  kingly  power  on  this  occasion.  The  circum- 
stances, which  seem  to  me  to  render  this  a  probable  opinion, 
are  the  following.  Saul  assumed  neicher  the  state  nor  the 
authority  of  a  king ;  but  went  back  to  his  agricultural  pur- 
suits in  Gibeah,  as  aforetime.  No  tribute  was  levied  for  him, 
nor  any  arrangement  made  for  supjiorting  the  regal  dignity. 
He  received  gifts  from  only  a  few,  while  by  many  he  was 
openly  contemned.  The  mass  of  the  people  paid  him  scarcely 
any  deference  at  all.  Samuel  did  not  let  go  the  reins  of  gov- 
ernment, nor  resign  his  power  as  chief  magistrate  of  Israel ; 
for  his  authority  was  joined  to  that  of  Saul  in  summoning  the 
Israelites  to  the  assistance  of  Jabesh-gilead,  against  l^ahash, 
king  of  the  Ammonites.  In  this  war,  Saul  exhibited  military 
talents  of  a  high  order.  Nor  were  the  moderation  and  clem- 
ency, displayed  by  him,  at  its  close,  towards  those  who  had 
opposed  his  elevation  to  the  throne,  less  signal.  His  valor, 
prudence,  and  magnanimity  completely  won  the  confidence 
and  the  heart  of  the  nation.  Samuel,  taking  advantage  of 
this  favorable  temper  of  the  people,  convened  a  general  assem- 
bly at  Gilgal,  proposed  Saul  as  king  a  second  time,  and 
obtained  a  unanimous  vote  in  his  favor.  Then,  for  the  first 
time,  it  is  said,  that  they,  that  is,  the  people,  made  Saul  king, 
and  gave  themselves  up  to  great  and  general  rejoicings.  Im- 
mediately after  his  inauguration,  Samuel  formally  resigned 
his  office  as  judge,  surrendering  his  authority  into  the  hands 
of  the  people,  from  whom  he  had  received  it,  and  by  wdiom 
he  was  honorably  exonerated  from  all  charge  of  blame  in  his 
public  administration,  and  the  fullest  testimony  was  borne  to 
the  purity  of  his  oflicial  conduct.  Josephus*  says,  that,  on 
the  occasion  of  Saul's  election  and  inauguration  at  Gilgal, 
Samuel  anointed  him  a  second  time.  This  seems  not  improb- 
able, though  tlie  circumstance  is  not  mentioned  by  the  sacred 
historian ;  for  the  first  anointing  was  a  private  transaction, 
and  he  was  not  anointed,  when  elected  by  the  lot.     From  this 

*  Antiq.  1.  6.  C.  5. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  653 

time  Saul  assumed  the  reins  of  government,  and  was  regarded 
as  the  lawful  sovereign  of  Israel. 

How  clearly  do  we  see  from  this  detail,  that  the  choice  of 
a  king  in  Israel  was  neither  in  the  oracle  nor  the  people 
separately,  but  in  both  conjointly ;  since  the  decision  of  the 
former  did  not  take  eifect,  till  it  was  ratified  and  confirmed 
by  the  action  of  the  latter.  How  manifest  is  it,  that  the 
miraculous  designation  of  magistrates  in  the  Hebrew  com- 
monwealth, was  never  understood  to  exclude  the  free  suffrage 
of  the  peoj)le  in  their  election.  If  these  things  still  seem  to 
any  irreconcilable,  we  are  able  to  adduce  examples  of  their 
co-existence  even  out  of  the  history  of  heathen  states.  It  is 
related  by  Livy*  of  Tarquinius  Prisons  and  Servius  Tullius, 
that,  before  they  were  raised  to  the  regal  dignity  at  Rome, 
the  one  had  his  hat  taken  off",  borne  aloft  into  the  air,  and 
fitly  deposited  again  in  its  place,  by  an  eagle ;  and  the  other 
had  a  flame  resting  on  his  head,  which,  after  being  for  some 
time  an  object  of  terror  to  the  beholders,  glided  ofi",  on  his 
awaking  out  of  sleep,  without  leaving  any  trace  of  its  pre- 
sence on  his  person.  By  these  portents  it  was  believed,  that 
each  of  them  was  designated  of  the  deity  to  be  king.  Still, 
neither  by  themselves  nor  others  were  they  interpreted  as 
giving  them  a  right  to  the  throne,  much  less  as  excluding 
the  popular  sufii'age  from  their  election,  or  authorizing  the 
opinion  that  any  man  ought  to  be  king  of  Home,  whom  the 
people  had  not  first  chosen  to  reign  over  them.  Certainly  I 
would  not  be  understood,  from  this  illustration,  as  intend- 
ing to  compare  the  vain  prodigies  of  the  heathens  with  the 
true  miracles  of  the  Israelites.  Yet  it  should  be  remem- 
bered, that  each  people  had  a  like  opinion  of  each.  God 
raised  up  judges  for  his  people  Israel.  That  the  scripture 
plainly  asserts.  But  to  infer  from  hence,  that  the  people  did 
not  elect  them,  would  be  false  reasoning,  since  the  fact  is  un- 
questionable, that  they  did.    So,  that  God  elected  Saul  to  be 

*  Lib.  1,  c.  34,  39. 


554  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

king  of  Israel,  is  certain.  Yet  it  is  just  as  certain,  that  the 
people  did,  none  the  less  for  that,  themselves  elect  him  like- 
wise.    The  one  certainly  is  as  strong  as  the  other.* 

The  history  of  David's  elevation  to  the  throne  still  further 
illustrates  the  meaning  of  the  statute  under  consideration. 
The  house  of  Saul  had,  by  God's  command,  on  account  of  his 
infractions  of  the  law,  been  excluded  from  the  succession.f 
The  prophet  Samuel  had,  by  direction  of  the  oracle,  privately 
anointed  David,  as  the  successor  of  Saul.;};  The  subsequent 
history  shows,  that  that  unction  did  not,  of  itself  alone,  confer 
a  full  and  valid  title  to  the  crown  of  Israel.  When  Saul  had 
been  slain  in  a  battle  with  the  Philistines,  an  Amalekite 
stripped  him  of  his  ci'own,  and  brought  it  to  David.§  Did 
David  consider  himself  entitled  to  wear  it?  By  no  means. 
He  assumed  neither  the  crown  itself,  nor  the  authority,  of 
which  it  was  the  symbol.  He  returned,  with  his  followers, 
to  the  city  of  Hebron,  as  a  private  citizen.  In  that  capacity, 
he  abode  there  for  some  time,  until,  as  the  historian  states, 
"  the  men  of  Judah  (the  citizens,  the  people  of  that  tribe) 
came  and  anointed  David  king  over  the  house  of  Judah."]] 
Thus  did  David,  by  the  joint  act  of  the  oracle  and  the  people, 
become  king  of  Judah.  Tlie  other  eleven  tribes  raised  Ish- 
bosheth,  a  son  of  Saul,  to  the  sovereign  power,  and  adhered 
to  him  for  seven  years.^  Did  David,  for  that,  regard  them 
as  guilty  of  treason  ?  Not  in  the  least.  Yet  that  would  have 
followed  inevitably,  if  his  unction  by  Samuel  had  given  him 
a  legal  right  to  the  throne  of  all  Israel.  David  defended 
himself,  (as  who  would  not?)  when  attacked  by  the  army  of 
Ishbosheth  ;**  but  he  made  no  attempt  to  reduce  the  eleven 
tribes  to  allegiance  to  his  government  by  force  of  arms. 
"When  at  length  they  submitted  themselves  to  his  sceptre, 
their  submission  was  voluntary.     They  freely  chose  him  for 

*  Harrington's  Com..  Isr.  c.  2.         f  1  Sam.  xv.  11,  26,  28. 

X  1  Sam.  xvi.  13.  §  2  Sam.  i.  10. 

II  2  Sam.  ii.  1-4.  ^  Ibid.  ii.  8, 11.        **  Ibid.  ii.  12- 30. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  555 

their  king ;  yet,  in  doing  so,  it  is  remarkable  that  they  dis- 
tinctly recognized  the  part  which  the  oracle  had  previously 
taken  in  his  election.*  Here,  again,  we  perceive  the  concur- 
rence of  the  oracle  and  the  people,  in  the  choice  of  a  person 
to  fill  the  throne  of  Israel. 

It  is  probable,  as  we  shall  see  in  the  sequel,  that  David, 
when  he  was  made  king,  reserved  the  right  of  naming  his 
successor.  But,  notwithstanding  this,  it  is  clear,  that  a  gen- 
eral diet  was  held ;  that  Solomon  was  formally  proposed  to 
them ;  and  that  they,  by  their  free  suffrages,  confirmed  the 
royal  nomination.f  It  was  not  till  after  this  vote,  that  Solo- 
mon was  anointed  and  inaugurated,  and  the  people  gave 
themselves  up  to  the  festivities,  suited  to  the  occasion.  The 
history  adds  :  "  Then  (i.  e.  after  his  election  by  the  congrega- 
tion) Solomon  sat  on  the  throne  of  the  Lord  as  king,  instead 
of  David  his  father,  and  prospered ;  and  all  Israel  obeyed 
him.  And  all  the  princes,  and  the  mighty  men,  and  all  the 
sons  likewise  of  king  David,  submitted  themselves  unto  Solo- 
mon the  king.":}:  Manifestly,  this  submission  and  obedience 
were  rendered  to  him,  as  having  been  constitutionally  elected 
to  the  regal  oflice. 

3.  The  Hebrew  sovereign  was  to  be  a  native  Hebrew  citi- 
zen ;  he  was  to  be  elected  from  his  bi'ethreu  ;  no  foreigner 
was  to  sit  on  the  throne  of  Israel.  This  was  a  politic  and 
patriotic  law.  A  foreigner  might  change  the  constitution,  or 
raise  up  a  faction  in  direct  opposition  to  the  national  interest.§ 
Foreigners  were  heathens,  and  would  be  more  inclined  than 
Israelites  to  violate  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state,  by  the 
introduction  of  idolatry.  But  this  law  was  grossly  misinter- 
preted in  the  later  periods  of  the  Jewish  history.  It  was 
understood  as  forbidding,  on  the  part  of  the  Hebrews, 
submission  to  those  foreign  powers,  under  whose  dominion 
they  had  been  brought,  through  the  overruling  providence  of 

*  Ibid.  V.  1-3.  t  1  Chron.  xxix.  20-22. 

X  Ibid.  xxix.  23,  24.  g  D'lsrieli's  Genius  of  Judaism,  c.  4. 


556  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

God.  It  was  on  the  ground  of  this  misinterpretation  of  the 
law,  that  the  Jews  proposed  that  insidious  question  to  our 
Lord,  "Is  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar,  or  not?"* 
for  they  were  at  that  time  under  a  foreign  power,  Judea 
being  a  Roman  province.  If  he  had  said  yes,  they  in- 
tended  to  destroy  him  through  the  charge  of  subverting 
this  law  of  Moses ;  if  he  had  answered  no,  they  meant  to 
crush  him  by  the  power  of  Rome.  But  the  law  had,  in  real- 
ity, no  reference  to  such  a  case.  It  referred  to  free  elections. 
Moses  speaks  only  of  kings  chosen  by  the  Israelites  themselves. 
A  law,  such  as  the  later  Jews  conceived  this  to  be,  would 
inevitably  have  led  to  the  annihilation  of  a  conquered  people. 
The  conquerors,  unable  to  trust  their  fidelity  or  rely  upon 
their  allegiance,  would  be  driven  to  the  necessity,  either  of 
putting  them  all  to  the  sword,  or  scattering  them  by  slavery. 
The  Hebrew  prophets  interpreted  the  law  quite  differently 
from  the  Hebrew  zealots.  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  exhorted 
their  countrjanen,  when  now  a  conquered  people,  to  submit 
quietly  to  the  Chaldeans,  and  conduct  themselves  as  loyal 
subjects  of  the  Babylonish  government.f 

4.  The  Hebrew  king  was  not  to  multiply  horses.  As  the 
Israelites  made  no  use  of  horses  in  agriculture,  and  but  little 
as  beasts  of  burden,  employing  for  these  purposes  oxen  and 
asses,  and  as  they  made  most  of  their  journeys  on  foot,  and 
of  course  did  not  need  them  for  travelling,  this  must  be  un- 
derstood as  a  prohibition  against  maintaining  a  strong  force 
of  cavalry.  For  defence  cavalry  was  unnecessary.  On  the 
west  Palestine  had  the  sea.  On  the  north,  its  barrier  was  a 
range  of  lofty  and  almost  impassable  mountains,  where  a 
mountec  soldiery  would  be  of  little  use.  To  the  east  and 
south,  it  was  bounded  by  vast  deserts,  where  an  enemy's  ca- 
valry could  not  subsist,  for  want  of  forage.  The  only  object, 
therefore,  for  which  an  Israelitish  sovereign  could  desire  to 

*  Matt.  xxii.  17. 

t  Mich  Com.  Art.  54.     Jahn's  Heb,  Com.  B.  3,  S.  25. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBKEWS.  557 

keep  any  considerable  force  Df  this  description,  would  be  to 
make  foreign  conquests.  But  it  was  against  the  whole  scope 
of  the  Mosaic  law,  nay,  subversive  of  its  fundamental  pur- 
pose, that  the  Hebrews  should  be  conquerors  of  foreign 
countries,  and  their  king  a  universal  monarch.  And  as  the 
keeping  of  a  strong  body  of  horse  could  hardly  fail  to  engen- 
der a  spirit  of  foreign  conquest,  it  was  expressly  interdicted 
to  the  head  of  the  state.  He  was  especially  forbidden  to 
attempt  the  conquest  of  Egypt  in  order  to  obtain  horses 

5,  The  Israelitish  sovereign  was  still  further  forbidden  to 
marry  many  wives ;  so  early  were  women  dreaded  as  the 
corrupters  of  ro3''alty.  I  look  upon  this  law  as  a  prohibition 
against  keeping  a  numerous  harem,  or  a  state  seraglio  ;  that 
inseparable  accompaniment  of  eastern  despotism.  Besides 
the  inherent  tendency  of  the  thing  to  render  kings  effeminate, 
and  dissolve  tbeir  hearts  in  indolence  and  pleasure,  there  was 
a  special  reason  against  it  in  the  Isi'aelitish  polity.  It  is 
incident  to  the  keeping  of  a  harem  as  a  matter  of  royal  state, 
that  the  monarch  seek  out  and  collect  together  the  most  beau- 
tiful women  of  all  nations.  But  all  other  nations  at  that 
time  were  idolaters.  Moses  dreaded  the  influence  of  heathen 
beauties  upon  the  religious  principles  and  character  of  the 
Hebrew  kings.  He  feared  that  it  would  lead  to  the  introduc- 
tion and  practice  of  idolatry.  How  reasonable  his  fears 
were,  the  history  of  Solomon  aflbrds  a  memorable  and 
melancholy  proof.  His  harem  contained  a  thousand  women, 
many  of  whom  were  Moabites,  Ammonites,  Edomites,  Zido- 
nians,  and  Hittites,  besides  the  daughter  of  Pharoah  ;  "  strange 
women."  His  wives  turned  away  his  heart  after  other  gods. 
He  appears  to  have  built  temples  for  them  all,  and  himself 
joined  in  paying  divine  honors  to  Ashtoreth,  and  Milcom,  and 
Chemosh,  and  Molech.  The  conduct  of  Solomon  places  in  a 
very  striking  light  the  wisdom  of  this  statute  ;  at  the  same  time 
that  it  shows,  that  none  of  the  laws  of  Moses  were  less  ob- 
served than  this.     It  shows  further,  that  the  spirit  of  monar- 


558  COMMENTAKIES    OlSf    THE 

clij,  at  least  in  the  form  in  which  it  has  always  been  found 
in  the  east,  was  repugnant  to  the  genius  of  the  Mosaic  legis- 
lation. 

6.  The  king  was  not  greatly  to  multiply  to  himself  silver 
and  gold.  Moses  dreaded  wealth,  not  less  than  women,  as 
tending  to  the  corruption  of  royalty.  The  possession  of  great 
treasure  naturally  leads  to  luxury,  which  is  an  enemy  to 
virtue.  It  is,  moreover,  in  a  monarch,  a  great  engine  of  des- 
potism. He  may  nse  it  for  crushing  the  liberties  of  the 
people.  The  hoarding  up  of  large  treasures  by  the  sovereign 
tends  to  obstruct  the  circulation  of  money,  discourage  indus- 
try, and  impoverish  his  subjects.  The  Israelitish  king,  ob- 
serves Lewis,*  "  was  allowed  to  lay  up  money  in  the  treasury 
at  the  temple,  for  the  occasions  of  the  state,  but  was  forbidden 
to  fill  his  own  coffers  for  his  private  interest,  lest  he  should 
squeeze  his  subjects,  and  exact  more  of  them  than  they  were 
able  to  bear.'*  There  is,  undoubtedly,  as  Michaelisf  has 
noticed,  a  wide  and  obvious  difference  between  these  two 
sorts  of  treasure.  That  laid  up  in  the  public  treasury,  the 
king  could  not  use,  without  the  consent  of  the  other  branches 
of  the  government.  Of  course,  he  could  not  pervert  it  to 
purposes  of  tyranny,  on  pretence  of  applying  it  to  the  public 
service.  David  had  collected  large  treasures  for  the  sanc- 
tuary.:}: According  to  the  common  reckoning,  they  amounted, 
in  round  numbers,  to  four  thousand  three  hundred  and  five 
million  dollars,  a  sum  almost  beyond  belief  Michaelis  (in 
his  Commentary  on  the  Age  anterior  to  the  Babylonish  Cap- 
tivity, §  T.)  estimates  the  shekel  at  one  tenth  the  value 
usually  assigned  to  it.  This  would  reduce  the  amount  to 
four  hundred  and  thirty  millions.  But  Kennicott§  is  of  the 
opinion,  that,  in  the  enumeration,  a  cypher  too  many  has 
crept  in.     Cutting  ofi"  that,  there  still  remain  forty  three  mil* 

*  Antiq.  Heb.  Repub.  B.  1.  c,  5. 

f  Com.  on  Laws  of  Moses,  Art.  54. 

X  1  Chron.  xxii.  14.  g  Dissert.  2.  p.  354, 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  559 

lion  dollars,  which,  says  Michaelis,  for  David's  time,  is  still  a 
very  great  treasure,  and  only  to  be  accounted  for,  from  the 
plunder  of  so  many  nations. 

7.  The  sovereign  of  Israel  must  be  the  defender  of  religion. 
Judaism  could  exist  only  in  a  constant  triumph  over  idolatry. 
"  By  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  the 
king  was  forbidden  to  introduce  any  new  mode  of  religious 
worship.  Neither  could  he,  like  the  kings  of  other  nations, 
perform  the  functions  of  a  priest,  unless  he  was  of  the  tribe 
of  Aaron,  as  was  the  case  with  the  Asmonean  princes.  On 
the  contrary,  he  was  required  to  reign  as  the  representative 
and  vassal  of  Jehovah,  to  promote  the  institutions  of  religion 
as  a  matter  of  obedience  to  him,  and  to  attend  to  the  decla- 
rations of  the  prophets,  as  his  ambassadors."  * 

8.  The  law,  and  not  the  king's  own  will  and  pleasure,  was 
to  be  the  rule  of  his  administration.  This  point  was  made 
very  prominent  in  the  statute,  as  the  reader  will  perceive  by 
recurring  to  it.  The  king  was  required  to  make,  or  cause  to 
be  made,  an  accurate  transcript  of  the  law  out  of  the  book, 
which  was  before  the  priests  the  Levites ;  that  is,  probably, 
the  autograph,  kept  in  the  tabernacle.  This  he  must  have 
with  him  continually,  and  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his 
life,  to  the  end  that  he  might  learn  to  keep  all  the  words  ot 
this  law  and  these  statutes,  to  do  them.  He  might  not  "  turn 
aside  from  the  commandment  (the  constitution  and  the  laws) 
to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left."  From  this  we  see,  that  the 
laws  were  supreme.  The  kings  were  as  much  bound  to  ob- 
serve them,  as  the  private  citizens.  They  had  no  power  to 
make  or  repeal  a  single  statute.  We  have  here  a  perfect  ex- 
emplification of  a  government  of  laws.  The  constitutional 
king  of  Israel  could  not  assume  and  exercise  arbitrary  power, 
without  first  trampling  under  foot  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
state.  Moses  made  him  simply  the  first  citizen.  He  aimed 
also  at  making  him  the  wisest,  the  purest,  and  the  best. 

*  Jahn's  Heb.  Com.  B.  4.  S.  26. 


56#  COMMENTAKIES    ON    THE 

9.  The  king  most  be  gracious  and  condescending  towards 
his  subjects.  His  heart  must  not  be  lifted  up.  He  must  look 
upon  his  people,  not  only  as  equals,  but  as  brethren.  We 
find  the  best  kings  cherishing  this  sentiment,  and  acting 
upon  it.  When  David  addressed  the  states-general,  he  rose 
before  them,  and  used  this  affectionate  compellation  :  "  Hear 
me,  my  brethren,  and  my  people."*  On  this  foundation  the 
Hebrew  doctors  have  established  the  rule,  that  the  king  must 
render  honor  to  the  general  assembly ;  when  it  presents 
itself  before  him,  he  must  rise  from  his  seat,  and  receive  it 
standing.f 

10.  All  the  above  conditions  being  observed  by  him,  whom 
the  Israelites  should  choose  for  their  king,  the  throne  was  to 
be  hereditary  in  his  family.  This  is  plain  from  the  conclud- 
ing words  of  the  statute,  which  are  as  follows  :  "  To  the  end 
that  he  may  prolong  his  days  in  his  kingdom,  he  and  his 
children,  in  the  midst  of  Israel."  Moses  enjoins  it  upon  the 
king  to  keep  the  laws,  that  he  and  his  posterity  may  long  fill 
the  throne.  But  it  is  quite  as  important  to  observe,  that, 
although  the  sceptre  was  hereditary,  it  was  not  inalienable. 
It  might  be  taken  from  one  family  and  given  to  another,  by 
the  concurrent  will  of  Jehovah  and  the  Hebrew  people. 
Nay,  it  certainly  would  be  thus  transferred,  if  the  king  failed 
to  govern  according  to  the  laws.  The  Hebrew  crown,  then, 
was  elective,  not  in  the  sense  that  every  individual  king  was 
to  be  chosen,  but  only,  when  occasion  required,  some  particu- 
lar family.  "  Consequently,  while  the  reigning  family  did 
not  violate  the  fundamental  laws,  they  would  continue  to 
possess  the  throne ;  but  if  they  tyrannized,  they  would  forfeit 
it.  Moses,  who  gave  this  injunction,  knew  certain  elective 
monarchies,  where  every  individual  king  was  chosen,  as  in 
Poland.     The  kingdom  of  Edom  in  his  time  was  undoubtedly 

*  1  Chron.  xxviii.  2. 

f  Schickard  de  Jur.  Reg.  Haebr.  p.  91,  cited  by  Salvador,  L.  6,  c.  2. 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  561 

of  this  description  ;  for  of  eight  kings,  we  find  not  one,  who 
was  the  son  of  liis  predecessor."* 

Thus  we  perceive,  that  the  Israelitish  kings  M^ere  ri.^  Afn,v 
lute  and  unlimited  sovereigns;  they  were  constitutional  mo- 
narchs.f  Besides  that  original  and  fundamental  law,  which 
we  have  just  been  examining,  a  special  capitulation  was 
sworn  to  by  the  kings  of  Israel.  The  comjmct  between  Saul 
and  tlie  Hebrew  people,  made  when  he  was  chosen  to  the 
royal  dignity,  was  drawn  up  by  Samuel.  That  writing,  in 
which  doubtless  were  specified  the  rights  of  the  king,  was 
carefully  deposited  in  the  sanctuary.;}:  Of  its  contents,  how- 
ever, the  bible  does  not  inform  us.  Still,  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  that  the  limitations  of  the  royal  power,  fixed  by  it, 
were  numerous  and  important.  This  is  the  more  probable, 
as  we  find  several  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  whose  sway  was 
much  less  limited  than  that  of  Saul,  yet  subject  to  very  great 
restrictions. 

When  the  eleven  tribes  submitted  to  David,  we  again  find 
express  mention  made  of  a  compact  between  him  and  the 
people,  called  a  league,  or  covenant  ;§  yet,  as  in  the  former 
case,  we  are  ignorant  of  its  specific  provisions.  There  is  pro- 
bable ground  for  the  conjecture,  that  it  gave  to  the  king  the 
right  of  naming  for  his  successor  whichever  of  his  sons  he 
might  think  most  capable  of  filling  the  throne  beneficially  to 
the  nation  ;  for  this  right  David  not  only  exercised,  but  all 
Israel  conceded  it  to  him  ;  insomuch  that  Bathsheba,  instruct- 
ed by  Nathan,  said  to  him  :  «  The  eyes  of  all  Israel  are  upon 
thee,  that  thou  shouldest  tell  them  who  should  sit  on  the 
throne  of  my  lord  the  king  after  him."|l  And  we  find,  that 
the  bare  word  of  the  king,  in  the  last  extremity  of  old  age, 

*  Mich.  Com.  Art.  54. 

t  The  remaining  part  of  this  chapter  is,  for  substance,  though  much 
condensed,  and  otherwise  not  a  little  modified,  taken  from  articles  55-60 
of  the  Commentaries  of  Michaelis. 

t  1  Sam.  X.  25.  §  2  Sam.  v.  3.  ||  1  Kings  i.  20. 


562'  COMMENTAKIES    ON    THE 

was  sufficient  to  place  Solomon  on  the  throne,  in  opposition 
to  the  wishes  of  the  eldest  brother,  the  general  of  the  army, 
and  the  high  priest,  and  to  prevent  the  coronation  of  Adoni- 
jali,  even  although  the  ceremony  had  been  commenced.*^ 
This  right  of  setting  aside  the  first  born  by  the  arbitrary  will 
of  the  king  is  not  usual  in  hereditary  monarchies,  and  there- 
fore it  is  probable,  that  it  was  conferred  upon  David  by  the 
terms  of  the  capitulation. 

The  ten  tribes  proposed  to  Eehoboam  some  new  stipula- 
tions, with  a  view  to  abridge  the  royal  prerogative,  as  exer- 
cised by  Solomon.  This  was,  in  fact,  a  new  capitulation, 
offered  to  the  young  monarch  by  a  people  yet  in  possession 
of  their  liberty.  The  king  despotically  refused  their  terms. 
Thereupon  the  ten  tribes  refused  their  allegiance  to  him,  ajid 
chose  a  king  for  themselves,  who,  no  doubt,  acceded  to  the 
wishes  of  the  people,  and  promised  to  abide  by  the  stipula- 
tions required.f 

When  Joash  was  anointed  king,  mention  is  again  made  of 
a  covenant  between  him  and  the  people.:}:  But  here,  again, 
the  history  gives  us  no  certain  information  concerning  its 
contents.  Yet  there  is  no  doubt,  that  the  design  of  the 
people,  in  imposing  this  capitulation  upon  their  king,  was  to 
bring  the  royal  prerogative,  stretched  beyond  all  bounds  in 
the  preceding  reigns,  within  something  like  the  original 
limits,  afiixed  to  it  by  the  law  of  Moses. 

Upon  the  whole,  it  is  quite  clear,  that  the  king  of  Israel 
was  not  an  unlimited  monarch,  as  the  defenders  of  the  divine 
right  of  kings,  and  of  the  passive  obedience  of  subjects,  have 
been  accustomed  to  represent  him.§  How  could  he  be  so, 
when  every  tribe  was  under  its  own  chief,  had  its  own  gov- 
ernment and  common  weal,  and  even  exercised  the  right  of 
war  ?  I  Saul,  the  first  of  the  kings,  appears  to  have  had  very 
little  power.     In  the  beginning  of  his   reign  (if  his  reign 

*  1  Kings  i.  25-27.  f  1  Kings  xii.  1-20.  J  2  King.s  xi.  17. 

§  See  Filmer  passim.        ||  See  the  last  chapter. 


LAWS    OF   THE    AJSTCIENT   HEBREWS.  568 

commenced  at  bis  first  election,  according  to  the  common 
opinion,  which,  however,  I  doubt,  for  reasons  previously  as- 
signed,) be  still  pursued  the  business  of  husbandry,  apparent- 
ly laboring  witb  his  own  hands  *  Afterwards,  his  anny, 
even  in  the  field,  shared  with  him  many  of  the  rights  of  the 
supreme  power.f  In  the  reign  of  David,  such  was  the  power 
of  this  army,  that  he  found  it  prudent  to  allow  two  murders, 
perpetrated  by  its  general,  Joab,  to  go  unpunished,  though 
be  did  so  with  extreme  reluctance.  In  this,  we  may  perhaps 
think,  that  we  perceive  the  marks  of  a  military  government, 
where  the  army  is  omnipotent,  and  while  it  renders  the  king 
independent  of  the  people,  still  keeps  him  in  subjection  to 
itself.  But  this  was  by  no  means  the  case.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  the  army  was  the  people ;  and  both  Harrington:]:  and 
Lowman§  are  of  the  opinion,  that  its  officers  were,  to  a 
great  extent  at  least,  the  deputies  who  composed  the  general 
diets  of  Israel.  But,  secondly,  the  military  was  so  in  sub- 
jection to  the  civil  power,  the  king  and  the  army  were  so 
limited  by  the  liberty  of  the  people,  that  the  king  appears 
not  even  to  have  had  the  right  to  demand  of  the  cities  of 
Israel  the  opening  of  their  gates  to  his  troops.  The  story, 
contained  in  2  Sam.  20  : 1-20,  seems  to  warrant  this  conclu- 
sion. Sheba,  a  rebel,  had  thrown  himself  into  the  city  of 
Abel.  Joab  besieged  it  by  David's  orders.  The  citizens 
declared  that  they  had  no  share  in  the  rebellion.  They  did 
not,  however,  on  that  account,  open  their  gates  to  Joab  ;  but 
they  sent  him  the  rebel's  head,  and  he  quietly  retired  with 
his  troops.  Even  Solomon,  who  carried  the  royal  prerogative 
to  a  great  height,  and  ruled  quite  after  the  manner  of  a  des- 
pot, built  cities  of  his  own  for  his  cavalry  and  his  chariots, 
not  venturing  to  quarter  them  on  the  people.  In  the  latter 
times,  from  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  we  find  the  kings  still 
more  circumscribed  in  their  power,  by  their  privy  council. 

*  1  Sam.  si.  5.  t  Ibid.  xiv.  44,  45. 

X  Commonwealth  of  Israel,  C.  2.  ?  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  C.  8. 


564  COMMENTARIES    ON    TEE 

But  notwithstanding  tlie  limitations  of  the  rojal  joreroga- 
tive,  imposed  by  the  law  of  Moses  and  the  jealousy  of  the 
people,  there  was  yet,  as  Samuel  had  forewarned  his  country- 
men there  would  be,  a  strong  tendency  to  despotism,  in  the 
government  of  the  Israelitish  kings.  Their  will  often  became 
law,  even  in  matters  of  the  highest  importance.  How  tyran- 
nically did  Saul  act  towards  David,  and  those  eighty  priests, 
whom  he  caused  to  be  put  to  death,  without  the  shadow  of  a 
trial  or  a  crime!*  In  the  condemnations  and  pardons,  pro- 
nounced by  David,  we  also  perceive  the  decisions  of  despotic 
authority.  Solomon  went  still  greater  lengths  in  this  respect, 
even  to  the  deciding  on  life  and  death  by  his  bare  will  and 
word.f 

The  notion,  that  the  king  in  person  should  be  the  supreme 
judge,  a  doctrine  peculiarly  Asiatic,  tended  strongly  to  promote 
the  despotism  of  the  Israelitish  monarchs.  Of  the  king,  there- 
fore, as  chief  judge,  it  will  be  necessary  to  speak  somewhat 
in  detail.  It  is  one  of  the  first  ideas  of  the  orientals  respect 
ing  their  king,  and  what  they  naturally  expect  of  him,  thai 
he  should  himself  administer  justice.  Hence  we  are  not  sur- 
prised to  find  it  related  by  Herodotus,  that  the  Medes  once 
obtained  a  king  from  the  following  circumstance.  A  man^ 
who  had  great  reputation  for  wisdom  and  integrity,  and  to 
whom  almost  all  were  wont  to  resort  as  an  arbiter  in  cases  of 
dispute,  refused  at  last,  from  the  neglect  of  his  domestic  con- 
cerns occasioned  by  it,  to  decide  upon  their  quarrels,  or  to 
listen  to  their  applications  for  that  purpose;  and  thus  he 
forced  them  to  choose  him  for  their  king.  The  more  ancient 
nations  are,  and  the  nearer  to  their  origin,  the  more  prevalent 
do  we  find  this  idea  of  a  king.  Indeed,  while  nations  are 
yet  in  their  infancy,  and  the  number  of  the  people  small,  it  is 
easier  to  act  upon  this  doctrine.  The  king  of  a  thousand  fam- 
ilies may  do  what  to  the  king  of  a  million  would  be  impossible. 

In  a  great  nation,  the  king  cannot,  in  his  own  person,  exei- 

*  1  Sam.  xxii.  17,  18.  f  1  Kings  ii.  25. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIE>iT    HEBREWS.  565 

cise  the  office  of  judge,  without  materially  injuring  the  gen- 
eral interests  of  the  citizens.  He  cannot  have  time  to  inform 
himself  sufficiently  of  such  a  multiplicity  of  lawsuits,  as  he 
must  be  called  upon  to  decide.  Hence,  either  many  a  liti- 
gant will  not  obtain  a  hearing  at  all,  or  causes  in  general  will 
not  be  sufficiently  investigated,  and  arbitrary  and  unriehteous 
decisions  will  follow.  The  mischief  is  still  greater,  when  the 
king  is  very  gracious,  and  gives  free  access  to  all  his  subjects. 
In  that  case,  he  is  apt  to  be  overwhelmed  with  trifles,  and 
villainy  takes  advantage  of  his  goodness,  to  effect  the  ruin  ot 
the  innocent  and  the  simple.  On  the  other  hand,  if  his  sub- 
jects have  not  free  access  to  him,  another  evil  arises,  of  no 
less  magnitude ;  for  then  his  ministers  may  be  guilty  of  the 
grossest  injustice  and  oppression,  and  yet  the  sovereign  know 
nothing  about  it.  In  Asia,  it  is  more  practicable  for  the  king 
to  be  judge  in  his  own  person,  than  in  Europe,  because  there, 
justice  is,  in  general,  very  summary,  and  independent  of  set- 
tled forms.  Still,  this  does  not  make  it  less  liable  to  abuse, 
nor  the  actual  abuse  less  mischievous  in  its  consequences. 

If  the  first  kings  of  Israel  assumed  the  office  ot  judge,  the 
fault  lay  in  the  manners  of  the  east.  Moses  is  not  responsible 
for  it.  He  did,  indeed,  ordain,  that  the  king  should  be  a  dai- 
ly student  of  his  law,  but  not  that  he  should  discharge  the 
office  of  a  universal  judge.  It  is,  undoubtedly,  highly  useful 
to  a  king  to  be  acquainted  with  civil  law,  that  he  may  keep 
his  eye  on  his  subordinates,  and  know  whether  they  decide 
conformably  to  it.  In  this  view,  it  w^ould  appear,  Moses  de- 
sired, that  the  king  should  not  be  ignorant  of  jurisprudence ; 
but  he  did  not  mean  to  constitute  him  the  daily  judge  of  his 
people.  Let  the  following  circumstances  be  considered. 
Moses  himself  found,  by  experience,  that  it  was  beyond  his 
power  to  determine  all  the  disputes  among  the  people,  and, 
therefore,  he  appointed  other  judges  of  various  grades ;  yet, 
in  matters,  which  could  not  be  decided  by  written  law,  known 
usage,  or  manifest  equity,  he  established  an  appeal  to  himself, 


566  COMMENTAKIES   ON   THE 

that,  on  such  occasions,  he  might  consult  God,  and  enact  new- 
laws  by  his  direction.*  Could  he,  then,  have  thought  of  im- 
posing on  the  kings  a  burden,  which  he  was  himself  unable 
to  bear  ?  The  king  was  not  a  prophet ;  neither  did  he,  like 
Moses,  enjoy  the  privilege  of  immediate  intercourse  with  God. 
Consequently  he  could  not,  by  a  direct  consultation  with  the 
unerring  one,  pronounce  an  infallible  judgment.  The  high 
priest,  according  to  the  constitution  of  Moses,  was  the  supremo 
jurist.  Certainly,  the  legislator,  who  devotCid  one  whole 
tribe  to  the  study  of  jurisprudence,  and  constituted  its  head 
the  supreme  legal  authority,  could  never  havt  intended,  that 
the  king,  occupied,  as  he  must  be,  with  the  cares  of  govern- 
ment, and  with  the  conduct  of  wars,  should,  in  addition,  be 
overwhelmed  with  the  investigation  of  lawsuits,  which  could 
not,  as  a  consequence,  fail  to  be  decided  too  much  in  the  sum- 
mary style  of  military  procedure. 

All  this  was,  undoubtedly,  in  the  plan  and  intention  of 
Moses,  Yet,  on  its  actual  institution,  and  as  matter  of  fact, 
the  Israelitish  monarchy  was  not,  in  this  respect,  thus  wisely 
regulated.  Without  inquiry,  without  trial,  without  the  inter- 
vention of  any  impartial  tribunal,  Saul  condemned  to  death 
eighty  innocent  priests,  and,  among  them,  the  high  priest 
himself,  together  with  their  wives  and  children.f  David  was 
far  from  being  a  tyrant ;  yet,  on  some  occasions,  he  had  re- 
course to  judicial  procedure  equally  summary,  and  without 
allowing  other  judges  to  interfere.:}:  Even  his  acts  of  grace 
took  place  without  those  preliminary  and  circumstantial  in- 
quiries, wliich,  in  governments  not  despotic,  are  deemed 
necessary  to  render  them  valid,  and  to  prevent  artifice  and 
fraud  from  abusing  the  royal  clemency,  to  the  scandal  of 
justice  and  the  prejudice  of  the  country.  Of  this,  a  memo- 
rable instance  is  afforded  in  the  pardon  of  the  supposed  son 

*  Exod.  xviii.    Numb.  sv.  32-36. 

t  1  Sam.  xsi.  11-19.  | 

X  2  Sam.  i.  5-16.  iv.  9-12.  xiv.  4-11.     1  Kings  ii.  5-9. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEIIKEWS.  567 

of  the  widow  of  Tekoah.*  Had  the  king  instituted  the  least 
inquiry  into  the  facts  of  the  case,  he  could  not  have  been  in- 
veigled into  a  condemnation  of  himself. 

In  the  time  of  this  king,  the  defect,  which  had  thus  at- 
tended the  administration  of  justice,  broke  out  into  a  formi- 
dable evil.  As  long  as  David  was  king  of  Judah  alone,  it 
was  not  beyond  his  power,  in  some  measure  at  least,  to  exe- 
cute the  office  of  judge.  But  when  he  became  king  of  all 
Israel,  and  his  known  humanity  and  love  of  justice  probably 
induced  too  many  of  his  subjects,  all  of  whom  had  free  access 
to  his  presence,  to  bring  their  causes  immediately  before  him, 
he  found  himself  overpowered  with  business,  and  the  course 
of  law  became  tedious,  to  a  degree  till  then  unknown  in  the 
east.  The  complaint  does  not  appear  to  have  been,  that  un- 
just decisions  were  rendered ;  but  that,  for  want  of  time  to 
hear  them,  even  clear  cases  could  not  be  decided.  It  is  pro- 
bable, that  the  course  of  law  was  still  rapid,  in  comparison 
with  what  it  is  with  us  ;  but  Asia  is  so  much  accustomed  to 
summary  justice,  that  the  least  delay  there  seems  a  great 
grievance.  It  was  not  imputed  to  negligence  in  David,  that 
he  did  not  do  more  than  one  man  could  do  ;  and  the  tears 
with  which  Jerusalem,  where  he  was  best  known,  accompa- 
nied him  in  his  flight  from  Absalom,  impress  us  with  a 
favorable  idea  of  his  previous  government.  Absalom,  how- 
ever, availed  himself  of  the  opportunity,  which  the  tediousness 
of  justice  presented  him,  to  seduce  the  affections  of  the 
people  from  his  father.  He  placed  himself  at  the  entrance 
of  the  palace,  and  questioned  the  complainants,  who  came 
from  the  provinces  to  the  capital,  concerning  their  suits. 
Having  heard  their  statements,  he  told  every  one  that  his 
case  was  clear,  and  that  it  was  greatly  to  be  regretted,  that 
the  king,  oppressed  with  business,  would  appoint  no  one  to 
listen  to  complaints.  At  the  same  time,  he  expressed  a  wish, 
that  the  king  would  commit  the  task  to  him,  in  which  case 

*  2  Sam.  xiv.  4-11. 


668  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

every  man  might  look  for  speedy  justice.*  By  this  artifice, 
for  which  a  departure  from  the  true  intent  of  the  Mosaic  con- 
stitution furnished  the  occasion,  he  excired  a  general  rebellion, 
which  was  attended  with  much  bloodshed.  Without  any 
battle,  the  universal  discontent  of  the  tribes  drove  David 
from  the  throne  ;  nor  did  he  recover  it,  till  the  blood  of  many 
citizens  was  spilt.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  the  history,  what 
measures  the  king  took  after  his  restoration,  to  correct  those 
defects  in  judicial  procedure,  which  had  almost  cost  him  his 
crown.  We  know,  however,  that,  in  the  latter  part  of  his 
reign,  he  appointed  several  thousands  of  Levites  as  judges.f 
With  these  he  probably  filled  some  of  the  higher  tribunals, 
which  administered  justice  in  the  king's  name.  The  Levites 
in  the  provinces  are  expressly  said  to  have  had  charge  of  all 
matters  pertaining  to  God  and  the  king.;}:  Of  course,  they 
must  have  had  power  to  administer  justice  in  the  king's 
name. 

Notwithstanding  this,  however,  the  king  seems  to  have 
reserved  the  right  of  pronouncing  arbitrary  sentence,  even  in 
cases  where  life  was  concerned.  The  innocent  blood,  which 
Manasseh  and  Jehoiakim  are  said  to  have  shed,§  renders  this 
more  than  probable.  It  is  true  that  blood  may  be  unjustly 
shed,  with  all  the  forms  of  law,  as  in  the  case  of  Naboth.| 
But  such  instances  are  rare.  It'  a  tyrant  shed  much  innocent 
blood,  it  affords  ground  of  presumption,  that  he  has  the 
power  of  pronouncing  on  life  and  death  in  himself.  At  least 
European  kings,  even  the  most  absolute  of  them,  are  pro- 
hibited from  shedding  much  innocent  blood  ;  except,  indeed, 
in  tue  case  of  the  hundreds  of  thousands,  whom  they  sacri- 
fice in  unjust  wars. 

The  mention  of  war  naturally  suggests  the  inquiry,  how- 
far  the  power  of  the  Israelitish  sovereigns  extended  in  mili- 

*  Sam.  XV.  2-6.  f  1  Chron.  xxiii.  4.  xxvi.  29-32. 

X  1  Chron.  xx\n.  30,  32. 

§  2  Kings  xxi.  16.     xxiv.  4.  ||  1  Kings  xxi.  1-14. 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  §69 

tai  J  matters.  On  this  point,  the  sacred  book  leaves  us  very 
much  in  the  dark.  Whether  the  king  could,  of  himself  alone, 
and  without  consulting  the  states-general,  proclaim  war,  and 
conclude  peace,  is  a  point,  which  must  be  reckoned  among 
the  chasms  in  our  knowledge  of  Hebrew  law.  Here  it  would 
seem,  the  jus  publicum  of  the  Israelites  was  itself  defective, 
because,  on  the  first  choice  of  a  king,  they  had  no  ancient 
usage  to  guide  them  ;  and  Moses,  who  did  not  himself  estab- 
lish a  monarchy,  but  only  permitted  its  future  establishment, 
had  said  nothing  on  this  point,  but  left  all  to  the  determina- 
tion of  the  Israelites.  It  is  certain,  that  Saul  made  his  first 
war,  without  consulting  the  people.*  The  case,  however, 
was  one  of  peculiar  urgency;  so  much  so,  that  he  may 
almost  be  said  to  have  been  forced  into  hostilities,  in  defence 
of  the  threatened  liberties  of  the  Gileadites.f  From  this 
case,  therefore,  nothing  jDOsitive  can  be  inferred  in  regard  to 
the  general  right  of  the  Hebrew  sovereigns  concerning 
war. 

The  royal  prerogative  extended  to  ecclesiastical  affairs. 
Indeed,  the  rights  of  the  kings  in  reference  to  matters  of  this 
nature,  were  so  great  as  to  excite  our  wonder,  especially 
when  we  consider,  that  the  priests  and  Levites,  as  a  sort  of 
nobility,  were  intended  to  balance  the  power  of  the  kings. 
They  could  condemn  even  the  high  priest  himself  to  death. 
Not  only  did  Saul,:j:  in  his  rage  and  madness,  do  this  ;  but 
Solomon  §  speaks  as  if  he  could  have  done  it,  and,  out  of 
pure  clemency,  was  satisfied  with  deposing  him.  The  kings 
exercised  the  right  of  reforming  abuses  in  religion,  and  gave 
attention  to  the  management  of  public  worship,  as  the  most 
efficacious  means  of  promoting  religion  and  morality,  and  so 
of  securing  the  obedience  of  the  people  to  the  supreme,  in- 
visible, divine  Sovereign  of  Israel.  Of  this  exercise  of  the 
royal  prerogative,  we  have  many  examples,  of  which  none 

*  1  Sam.  xi.  7.  t  1  !^am.  xi.  2. 

X  1  Sam.  xxii  17,  18.  §  1  Kings  ii.  26,  27. 


570  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

are  more  memorable,  tlian  those  of  David  and  Ilezekiali.  It 
was  altogether  suitable  to  the  Hebrew  constitution,  in  which 
the  worship  of  one  only  God  was  the  fundamental  principle. 
Under  that  constitution,  ftilse  religion  was  treason  to  the 
state,  and  it  M-as  proper,  that  the  kings  should  have  the  power 
of  exterminating  so  dangerous  an  enemy. 

Among  the  prerogatives  of  the  Hebrew  sovereigns  must 
also  be  placed  the  right  of  pardon.  That  this  power  should 
exist  somewhere  in  the  state,  is  highly  expedient,  and  even 
necessary.  A  civil  law,  without  all  possibility  of  dispensa- 
tion, would  be  subject  to  very  great  inconveniences ;  and 
would  be  the  occasion  of  sometimes  inflicting  very  grievous 
wrong.  Without  a  power  of  sometimes  remitting  punish- 
ments, innocence  might  suffer  by  the  very  law,  which  was 
made  for  its  protection.  That  the  right  of  pardon  was  exer- 
cised by  the  Israelitish  kings,  is  beyond  a  doubt.  Nor  was 
the  exercise  of  it  always  the  effect  of  mere  partiality,  but  of 
principle  and  a  consideration  of  circumstances.  David  not 
only  pardoned  his  son  Absalom,  but,  in  a  supposed  case, 
which  was  laid  before  him,  he  granted  a  murderer  his  life, 
who  was  represented  to  have  kiJled  his  brother,  because  the 
mother  herself  interceded  in  his  behalf,  and  his  father's  race 
would  have  been  extinct,  had  he  suffered  the  penalty  of  the 
law.* 

I  now  pass  to  a  consideration  of  the  royal  revenues.  Moses 
left  no  ordinance  concerning  them.  With  regard  to  what 
later  laws  and  usages  introduced  on  this  head,  the  following 
particulars  may  be  gleaned  from  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  several  branches  of  the  king's  revenue  were, 
presents ;  tithes  ;  royal  demesnes ;  bond  service ;  the  right 
of  pasturage  in  the  Arabian  deserts;  the  spoils  of  vanquished 
enemies ;  the  tribute  of  conquered  nations ;  and,  in  the  end, 
the  profits  of  a  lucrative  foreign  commerce. 

1.  Presents.     Long  before  the  time  of  the  kings,  and  even 

*  2  Sam.  xiv.  4-'^l. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  571 

hefore  the  age  of  Moses,  there  sprung  up  in  the  east  a  cus- 
tom, often  mentioned  in  the  Persian  liistory,  and  noticed  by 
Asiatic  travellers,  that  whoever  paid  a  visit  to  a  person  of 
higher  rank,  carried  with  him  a  suitable  present.  Joseph,  as 
prime  minister  of  Egypt,  received  such  a  present  from  his 
brethren.*  Saul  did  not  presume  to  wait  on  Samuel,  the 
judge,  without  a  present.f  This  was,  therefore,  the  most 
ancient  source  of  a  king's  revenue,  prior  to  all  tributes  and 
demesnes.  That  Saul  actually  enjoyed  a  revenue  of  this 
kind  is  certain, :j:  Whether  the  tax  continued  to  be  paid  to 
his  successors,  does  not  appear.  There  is  no  trace  of  it  after 
the  reign  of  Saul.  It  is  not  improbable,  that  David  abolished 
so  unseemly  an  impost,  and  admitted  every  petitioner  into 
his  presence,  without  subjecting  him  to  any  expense, 

2.  Tithes.  In  1  Sam.  8  :  15-17,  mention  is  made  of  the 
tenth  of  the  produce  of  the  fields,  the  vineyards,  and  the 
flocks,  as  the  right  of  the  future  king.  This,  on  his  actual 
appointment,  was  the  third  tenth  which  eveiy  Israelite  had 
to  pay.  The  first  was  given  to  the  Levites  ;§  the  second  was 
appropriated  to  the  sacrifice-feasts,  to  which  were  invited 
priests,  Levites,  friends,  orphans,  and  strangers. |  'None  but 
a  very  fruitful  country  could  have  borne  the  burden  of  an 
impost  to  the  extent  of  three  tenths  of  its  produce. 

3.  Royal  demesnes.  Samuel  mentions  a  demesne,  to  which 
the  king  would  have  a  right ;  for,  says  he,  "  he  will  take  your 
fields,  and  your  vineyards,  and  your  oliveyards,  even  the  best 
of  them,  and  give  them  to  his  servants  ;"1"  i,  e.  in  lieu  of  sala- 
ries. This  seem.s  inconsistent  with  the  Mosaic  law,  which 
divided  the  whole  of  Palestine  among  the  Israelites,  and  pro- 
hibited the  alienation  of  their  land.  Nevertheless,  it  is  cer- 
tain, that  the  king  had  a  demesne.**    It  is  likely,  that  at  first 

*  Gen.  xliii,  11-25.  f  1  Sam.  ix.  7.  J  1  Sam.  x.  27,  xvi.  20. 

§  Numb,  xviii.  21-32,     Levit.  xxvii.  30-33. 

II   Deut.  xii.  17-19,     xiv.  22-29,     xxvi.  12-15. 

1[  1  Sam,  viii.  14.  **  Eccl.  ii.  4-6.     1  Chron.  xxvii,  26-31. 


572  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

the  kings  took  possession  only  of  the  spots,  which  had  not 
been  previously  appropriated  and  improved,  of  which  there 
might  be  found  a  considerable  number,  particularly  beyond 
Jordan,  and  about  the  rills  in  the  Arabian  deserts.  Still, 
that  will  not  sufficiently  explain  the  passage,  cited  a  little 
above ;  for  it  is  there  said,  the  king  would  take  the  best  parts 
of  every  sort  of  landed  property. 

We  must,  therefore,  seek  some  other  mode  of  providing 
him  with  demesnes.  It  is  certain,  that  the  kings  exercised 
the  right  of  bestowing  the  inheritance  of  state  criminals  upon 
other  persons.*  It  is  not  improbable,  that  they  availed  them- 
selves of  the  same  right,  to  increase  the  royal  demesnes  by 
confiscations.  Indeed,  we  have  an  instance  of  this,  in  the 
case  of  Nabal,  who  was  stoned  on  a  false  charge  of  treason, 
and  his  estate  annexed  to  the  king's  demesnes.f  This  mode 
of  increasing  their  lands  must  have  formed  a  strong  tempta- 
tion to  wicked  kings,  to  put  innocent  persons  to  death  for 
23retended  crimes,  in  order  to  seize  and  appropriate  their  j)ro- 
perty.  Need  we  wonder,  that,  in  the  Hebrew  history,  we 
find  so  frequent  mention  of  the  shedding  of  innocent  blood  ? 

All  this  is  confirmed,  and  i-endered  certain,  by  what  we 
find  in  Ezekiel.  That  prophet  was  favored  with  a  vision  of 
the  future  reformation  of  the  Israelitish  church  and  state.;]: 
In  it  he  tells  us,  that  the  prince  will  then  have  his  own  por- 
tion, which  he  must  neither  alienate  nor  enlarge.  It  is  very 
distinctly  enjoined  upon  the  king  not  to  take  the  people's  in- 
heritance away  from  them  by  oppression,  and  not  to  thrust 
them  out  of  their  possessions.  *lt  is  further  enjoined  upon 
him  not  to  give  lands  to  his  family  out  of  the  people's  por- 
tions, but  out  of  his  own.  This  clearly  indicates  the  prac- 
tices, and,  I  may  add,  the  abuses,  of  preceding  times. 

The  olive  and  sycamore  grounds,  in  that  part  of  the  terri 
tory  of  Judah,  which  lay  nearest  the  sea,  and  was  called  the 

*  2  Sam.  xvi.  4.  f  1  Kings  xxi.  15,  16. 

t  Ezek.  xlv.  7,  8.    xlvii.  16-18 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  573 

lowlands,  belonged  to  the  king's  demesnes.  It  is  distinctly 
stated,  that  David  placed  one  officer  over  the  trees  in  thai 
district,  and  another  over  the  oil-stores.* 

That  the  kings  assigned  a  part  of  the  royal  demesnes  to 
their  servants,  in  lieu  of  salary,  appears  unquestionable.f  At 
a  time,  when  the  sovereign  could  be  possessed  of  but  little 
money,  this  was  the  natural  way  of  maintaining  and  reward- 
ing his  servants. 

4.  Bond  service.  For  the  cultivation  of  their  lands,  the 
Israelitish  kings,  governing  a  country  where  slavery  was  per- 
mitted, would  naturally  require  servile  labor.  Accordingly, 
we  find  bond  service  mentioned  by  Samuel  among  the  royal 
rights,  established  by  usage  among  the  neighboring  king- 
doms, and  which  would  be  claimed  and  exercised  by  the 
Hebrew  sovereigns,  whenever  monarchy  should  be  insti- 
tuted.:]: In  process  of  time,  these  services  seem  to  have  been 
increased  and  altered,  so  that  they  became  very  burdensome 
and  very  distasteful  to  the  Israelites.§  It  was  probably  this, 
which  gave  occasion,  first  to  the  complaints,  and  then  to  the 
rebellion,  in  the  reign  of  Rehoboam. 

6.  The  right  of  pasturage  in  the  Arabian  deserts.  This 
right  belonged  to  the  king,  in  common  with  his  subjects.  "We 
find  David  taking  advantage  of  this  privilege,  and  keeping 
large  herds  of  cattle,  sheep,  goats,  asses,  and  camels,  partly  in 
Sharon,  and  partly  in  Arabia ;  the  greater  part  of  them,  no 
doubt,  in  the  latter  place.  ||  Among  the  officers,  who  had 
charge  of  them,  two  Arabians  are  mentioned,  Obil,  the  Ish- 
maelite,  superintendant  of  the  camels,  and  Jaziz,  the  Hagar- 
ite,  superintendant  of  the  sheep. 

6.  The  spoils  of  vanquished  enemies  partly  flowed  into  the 
royal  treasury.^ 

7.  Among  the  royal  revenues  must  be  reckoned  the  tribute 

*  1  Chron.  xxvii.  28.  f  1  Sam.  viii.  14.     xxii.  7. 

X  1  Sam.  viii.  12,  16.  §  1  Kings  v.  17,  18. 

II  1  Chron.  xxvii.  29-31.  ^  2  Sam.  viii.    iii.  12. 


674  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

paid  by  conquered  nations.    These  are  often  mentioned  under 
the  name  of  gifts.* 

8.  Commerce.  Solomon  discovered  a  new  source  of  royal 
revenue,  which  must  have  been  very  productive.  He  en- 
gaged in  an  extensive  and  lucrative  foreign  commerce,  trad- 
ing chiefly  in  gold,  silver,  precious  stones,  spices,  linen,  and 
horses.f 


CHAPTEE  V. 

The  Hebrew  Senate. 


This  was  another  department  of  the  Hebrew  government, 
and  one  of  the  bonds  of  union  between  the  tribes  of  Israel. 
The  study  of  this  part  of  the  constitution  is  not  without  its 
difficulty.  The  persons  composing  the  senatorial  council,  the 
powers  vested  in  it,  and  the  functions  discharged  by  it,  are 
points  involved  in  no  little  obscurity.  All  the  information, 
which  I  find  in  the  sacred  books,  touching  this  subject,  is 
embodied  in  the  present  chapter. 

According  to  the  Hebrew  polity,  as  we  have  seen,;}:  every 
tribe,  and  even  every  city,  had  its  senate  of  princes,  or  elders, 
as  well  as  a  more  popular  assembly.  Some  such  institution 
seems  to  be  essential  in  every  well-balanced  government.  A 
council  of  sages,  venerable  on  account  of  their  age,  wisdom, 
and  dignity,  is  necessary  to  check  the  rashness  and  haste  of 
popular  assemblies.  Accordingly,  we  find,  that  free  govern- 
ments have  always  had  senates  of  some  kind,  to  balance  the 
power  of  the  people,  to  prepare  matters  of  public  business,  and 

*  1  Kings  iv  21.  Ps,  Ixxii.  10.  2  Sam.  viii.  6.      f  1  Kings  x.     }  B.  2.  C.  5. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS  575 

to  propose  measures  of  state,  in  some  degi  ee  of  maturity,  for 
the  action  of  the  more  popular  branch  of  the  government.* 
That  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  had  a  council  of  this  sort 
does  not  admit  of  a  reasonabla  doubt.  This  is  rendered  cer- 
tain by  the  frequent  mention  in  the  Hebrew  history  of  the 
princes  and  elders  of  Israel,  and  the  distinction,  many  times 
made,  between  the  princes  and  the  congregation.  "We  are 
now  to  inquire  when  this  body  was  instituted,  what  it  was, 
and  how  long  it  continued. 

Bertramf  has  well  observed,  that  the  number  of  seventy 
elders,  appointed  by  the  law  of  God,  was  not  so  much  a  new 
institution,  as  the  continuation  of  a  former  usage ;  as  God 
rather  confirmed  than  new  instituted  many  things  at  Mount 
Sinai,  which  were  ancient  customs  of  the  fathers.  Bishop 
Sherlock:}:  also  takes  notice,  "  that  every  tribe  had  its  own 
princes  and  judges,"  even  while  they  yet  remained  in  Egypt. 
When  Moses  was  first  sent  to  the  children  of  Israel,  to  in- 
form them,  that  Jehovah  had  visited  them,  and  seen  what 
w^as  done  unto  them  in  Egypt,  he  was  commanded  to  gather 
the  elders  of  Israel  together,  and  deliver  the  message  to 
them.§  This  direction  was  punctually  followed,  for  it  is 
said :  "  Moses  and  Aaron  went  and  gathered  the  elders  of 
the  children  of  Israel." |  It  is  a  material  observation  here, 
that,  besides  the  princes  of  tribes,  explicit  mention  is  made, 
in  the  same  period  of  the  Hebrew  history,  of  the  heads  of 
families,  or  claus.T  Of  these,  as  we  learn  from  a  subsequent 
part  of  the  history,"--*  there  were  fifty-eight,  who,  being  added  to 
the  twelve  princes  of  the  tribes,  make  up  the  number  seventy. 

There  is  little  doubt,  that,  even  before  the  exodus  of  Israel 
out  of  Egypt,  these  chiefs  of  tribes  and  heads  of  clans  formed 
a  council  of  state,  a  kind  of  provisional  senate.     They  were 

*  Lowm.  Civ.  Gov.  Jleb.  c.  9. 

I  De  Rep.  Hebr.  p.  51,  cited  by  Lowm.  c.  9, 

X  Dissert.  3.  ^  Esod.  iii.  16.  ||  Esod.  iv.  29. 

^  Exod.  vi.  14  seqq.         **  Numb.  xxvi. 


576  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

regarded  and  addressed  as  persons  of  chief  dignity  in  their 
respective  tribes.  That  they  were  clothed  with  some  sort  of 
authority,  is  evident  from  what  one  of  the  Hebrews  said  to 
Moses  :  "  Who  made  thee  a  prince  and  a  judge  over  us  ?"*  It  is, 
moreover,  apparent,  that  these  dignitaries  formed  an  organized 
body,  in  whose  counsels  and  resolutions  the  tribes  themselves 
were  united  into  one  nation  ;  since  Moses  addressed  them,  not 
as  princes  of  particular  tribes,  but  as  elders  of  Israel. f  It  de- 
serves, also,  particular  attention,  that  when  the  Israelites  left 
Egypt,  it  was  in  hosts,  or  by  their  armies,  that  they  did  it.:}: 
They  did  not  go  as  a  confused  and  disorderly  rabble,  but 
marched  in  battalions,  each  under  its  own  officers  and  its  own 
standard.  This  observation,  though  of  little  moment  in  it- 
self, is,  nevertheless,  important  for  the  inference,  which  it 
supports.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  Israelites  left 
Egypt  in  great  haste.  Now,  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  them  to  go  in  hosts,  or  squadrons,  if  there  had  not  been 
persons,  previously  known  and  recognized  as  commanders. 
They  could  not  otherwise  have  known  under  what  standard 
they  were  to  march,  or  by  what  particular  officers  they  were 
to  be  led.  Obviously,  it  would  not  have  been  practicable  to 
organize  an  army  of  two  and  a  half  million  people,  at  the 
instant  of  departure.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that,  while 
the  Israelites  were  yet  in  Egypt,  the  princes  of  tribes  must 
have  been  acknowledged  as  general  officers  of  the  tribes,  and 
the  chiefs  of  families  as  subordinate  officers,  commandino- 
their  respective  clans.§  It  was,  in  all  likelihood,  the  same 
seventy,  who,  at  the  giving  of  the  law,  were  summoned  to  go 
up  unto  the  Lord,  with  Moses  and  Aaron. [|  What  places  it 
out  of  all  doubt,  that  these  officers  were  an  organized  body, 
and  acted  as  a  council  of  state,  or  senate  of  sages,  is  a  law 
contained  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Numbers.^  Moses  is  there 
directed  to  make  two  silver  trumpets.     When  both  of  them 

*  Exod.  xi,  14.  t  Exod.  xii.  21,  28.  J  Exod.  xii.  41,  51. 

5  Lowm.  Civ.  Gov.  Hcb.  c.  9.         ||  Exod.  xxiv.  1.       1[  Vv.  1-4, 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  577 

were  blown,  the  wliole  congregation  was  to  assemble;  when 
only  one  of  them,  the  princes  and  heads  of  the  thousands  of 
Israel  were  to  come  together  for  the  despatch  of  public 
business.  But  this  law  was  given,  before  the  body,  which  is 
the  principal  subject  of  this  chapter,  was  called  into  being, 
and,  indeed,  before  the  events  occurred,  which  were  the  spe- 
cial occasion  of  its  institution. 

The  Israelites  lay  encamped  at  the  base  of  Mount  Sinai  for 
the  space  of  a  year.  At  the  end  of  that  time,  the  trumpets 
sounded,  the  cloud  was  taken  up  from  off  the  tabernacle  of 
testimony,  and  the  children  of  Israel  took  their  journeys  out 
of  the  wilderness  of  Sinai.  Their  first  halting  place  was  the 
wilderness  of  Paran.*  Here  the  people  complained  bitterly 
for  want  of  flesh.  Their  murmurs  displeased  the  Lord,  and 
his  anger  was  kindled  greatly.  Moses  also  was  displeased, 
and  greatly  afflicted  at  so  unpromising  a  state  and  prospect 
of  affairs.  He,  in  his  turn,  complained,  that  he  found  the 
burden  of  government  too  heavy  for  his  individual  strength. 
"  I  am  not  able,"  says  he,  "  to  bear  all  this  people  alone, 
because  it  is  too  heavy  for  me."  By  divine  direction,  and  in 
order  to  alleviate  the  weight  of  the  burden,  that  oppressed 
him,  Moses  instituted  a  council  of  seventy  elders,  who  might 
share  his  functions,  support  his  authority,  and  promote  his 
views.f  It  was  a  supreme  senate,  designed  to  take  part  with 
him  in  the  government.  As.  it  consisted  of  persons  of  age, 
worth,  experience,  and  respectability,  it  would  serve  mate- 
rially to  support  his  power  and  influence  among  the  people 
in  general.  It  would  unite  a  number  of  powerful  families 
together,  from  their  being  all  associated  with  Moses  in  the 
government,  and  would  materially  strengthen  the  union  of 
the  tribes.:}: 

A  detailed  account  of  the  origin  of  this  body  is  given  in 
the  eleventh  chapter  of  Numbers.     The  general  mode  of  or- 

•  Numb.  X.  11-13.  t  Numb.  xi. 

J  Mich.  Comment.  Art.  50. 
37 


578  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

ganization  is  related  in  these  words:* — "And  the  Lord  said 
unto  Moses,  Gather  unto  me  seventy  men  of  the  elders  of 
Israel,  whom  thou  knowest  to  be  the  elders  of  the  people,  and 
officers  over  them  :  and  bring  them  unto  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation,  that  they  may  stand  there  with  thee.  And  I 
will  come  down  and  talk  with  thee  there  ;  and  I  will  take  of 
the  spirit  which  is  upon  thee,  and  will  put  it  upon  them:  and 
they  shall  bear  the  burden  of  the  people  with  thee,  that  thou 
bear  it  not  thyself  alone.  And  Moses  went  out,  and  told  the 
people  the  words  of  the  Lord,  and  gathered  the  seventy  men 
of  the  elders  of  the  people,  and  set  them  round  about  the  tab- 
ernacle. And  the  Lord  came  down  in  a  cloud,  and  spake 
unto  him,  and  took  of  the  spirit  that  was  upon  him,  and  gave 
it  unto  the  seventy  elders :  and  it  came  to  pass,  that  when  the 
spirit  rested  upon  them,  they  prophesied,  and  did  not  cease. 
But  there  remained  two  of  the  men  in  the  camp,  the  name  of 
the  one  was  Eldad,  and  the  name  of  the  other  Medad :  and 
the  spirit  rested  upon  them ;  and  they  were  of  them  that 
were  written,  but  went  not  out  unto  the  tabernacle :  and  they 
prophesied  in  the  camp." 

"Three  things,"  says  Salvador,f  "are  here  worthy  of  note. 
The  candidate  for  the  senatorial  office  must  be  a  man  of  the 
people  ;  he  must  be  an  elder  of  the  people  ;  and  he  must  have 
been  previously  elevated  by  the  voice  of  the  people  to  some 
public  trust."  That  is  to  say,  he  must  be  a  tried  man ;  a  man 
in  whom  the  people  put  confidence  after  trial ;  and  a  man  of 
experience  in  public  affairs. 

The  seventy  senators,  chosen  from  among  the  elders  and 
officers,  were  to  be  brought  to  the  tabernacle  of  the  congrega- 
tion, that  they  might  stand  there  with  Moses.  In  other 
words,  they  were  to  be  solemnly  inaugurated,  and  consecrated 
to  this  service,  that  they  might  be  a  permanent  council,  to 
assist  Moses  in  the  government  of  the  people.  To  give  the 
greater  weight  to  their  decisions,  God  promises,  that  he  would 

*  Vv.  16  17,  24-26.  f  Hist.  Inst,  de  Moise,  1.  2.  C.  2. 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  679 

talk  with  Moses,  to  declare,  suggests  bishop  Patrick,*  that 
he  appointed  them  to  be  assistants  to  Moses  in  the  government. 
The  further  promise  was  added,  that  the  Lord  would  take  of 
the  spirit,  which  was  upon  Moses,  and  would  put  it  upon 
them ;  that  is,  as  again  suggested  by  bishop  Patrick,*  he 
would  confer  upon  these  men  wisdom,  judgment,  courage, 
and  other  needful  gifts  of  government,  with  which  Moses  was 
endowed.  To  give  assurance  of  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise, 
it  came  to  pass,  that,  when  the  spirit  rested  upon  them,  they 
prophesied.  The  spirit  of  prophecy  was  a  manifest  token, 
that  they  were  chosen  by  God  to  be  coadjutors  of  Moses,  that 
they  were  approved  by  him,  and  that  they  had  received  from 
him  a  spirit  of  government.f 

Yet  these  men  were  not  chosen  by  God  alone.  The  people 
concurred  in  the  election.  This  is  very  evident  from  the  his- 
tory cited  above.  Tlie  names  of  the  candidates  are  there 
said  to  have  been  written,  or  inscribed  ;  a  very  important 
statement.  In  what  manner  were  they  inscribed  ?  The  text 
does  not  inform  us  ;  and  the  field  is  left  open  to  conjecture.  Let 
it  be  premised  here,  that,  as  the  senators  were  to  bear  the 
common  burden  of  government  with  Moses,  which  con- 
cerned all  the  tribes,  and  that  they  were  specially  intended 
to  prevent  mutiny  and  sedition,  it  would  be  highly  suitable, 
that  there  should  be  an  equal  number  from  each  tribe,  and 
that  they  should  be  persons,  whom  the  tribes  themselves 
approved.  On  this  point,  Hebrew  and  christian  writers  are 
unanimous.  I  now  return  to  the  question.  How  were  the 
names  of  the  candidates  inscribed  ?  Did  Moses  himself 
write  the  names  of  the  persons,  whom  he  judged  competent 
and  qualified  for  the  senatorial  office,  and  submit  them  to 
the  approval  of  the  tribes  ?  This  would  have  been  to  de- 
prive the  tribes  of  one  of  their  fundamental  rights,  that  of 
designating  their  own  magistrates.  Besides,  Moses  was  not 
charged  with  appointing  the  senate,  but  with  assembling  it. 

*  In  loc.  f  rx)wra.  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  C.  9. 


580  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

It  is  not  probable,  therefore,  tliat  this  is  what  is  meant  by 
their  names  being  written.  Did  the  citizens,  then,  of  the 
respective  tribes,  themselves  elect,  by  ballot,  the  persons, 
whom  they  believed  most  worthy  of  the  dignity,  and  best 
fitted  to  discharge  its  functions  usefully?  This  supposition 
seems  the  most  reasonable.  In  the  selection  and  appointment 
of  magistrates,  Moses  demanded,  not  simply  wise  men,  but 
such  as  were  known  among  the  tribes.  How  could  this 
demand  be  answered,  otherwise  than  by  a  manifestation  of 
individual  opinion  ?  The  history  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
sheds  light  upon  this  point,  and  lends  confirmation  to  this 
conjecture.  The  apostles  incorporated  the  principles  of  the 
Mosaic  constitution  into  their  spiritual  society.  Needing 
certain  functionaries,  they  convene  the  whole  body  of  the 
disciples,  and  after  the  example  of  their  ancient  lawgiver, 
they  say  to  them  :  "  Look  ye  out  seven  men,  of  honest 
report,  and  full  of  wisdom."*  The  proposition  pleased  the 
assembly.  Thereupon,  they  themselves  selected  the  func- 
tionaries, as  suggested  ;  and  the  apostles,  in  accordance  with 
a  long  established  national  usage,  inducted  them  into  office 
by  the  solemn  imposition  of  hands.f  Here,  again,  I  observe 
by  the  way,  we  see  the  concurrence  of  the  oracle  and  the 
people  in  the  election  of  civil  rulers. 

Such,  then,  was  the  general  spirit  of  the  law.  "Without 
insisting  on  the  correctness  of  this  or  that  particular  mode  of 
selection,  the  fundamental  principle,  which  is  well  worthy  to 
arrest  our  attention,  is  plain  and  obvious.  The  law  institutes 
a  great  national  council,  or  senate,  composed,  not  of  priests, 
but  of  civilians  ;  not  of  men  belonging  to  privileged  classes, 
or  possessing  vast  estates,  but  of  men  wise,  prudent,  able,  of 
good  repute,  fearing  God,  and  already  skilled  in  afiairs  of 
state ;  not  politicians  merely,  but  statesmen,  sages,  patriots. 
The  name  of  seniors,  or  senators,  belonged  to  the  members  of 
the  great  council.     It  is  probable,  that  men  of  advanced  age 

*  Acts.  vi.  3.  t  Salvador,  1.  2.  c.  2. 


LAWS   Of    THE   ANCIENT   HEEKEWS.  581 

were  commonly  chosen  into  it ;  yet  young  men,  of  superior 
endowments,  sometimes  gained  admission.  This  we  learn 
from  the  speech  of  such  an  one  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,* 
who  boasts,  that  in  spite  of  his  youth,  he  had  obtained  an 
honorable  distinction  for  wisdom  among  the  senators. 

The  design  and  functions  of  this  institution  are  points  of 
chief  importance  in  this  inquiry.  The  law  declares,  in  ge- 
neral terras,  that  the  senators  were  to  bear  the  burden  of  the 
people  with  Moses,  that  he  might  not  bear  it  alone.  By  this 
can  hardly  be  meant  the  ordinary  administration  of  justice, 
for  provision  had  been  made  for  that  in  the  institution  of  the 
Jethronian  judges.  So  far,  therefore,  as  the  senate  was  to 
assist  Moses  in  judiciary  matters,  it  could  only  be  in  those 
greater  and  more  important  causes,  which  were  to  be  brought 
before  him  on  appeal,  or  those  difficult  questions,  which  the 
judges  of  the  inferior  courts  themselves  referred  to  him.  But 
this  was  not  the  principal  end  of  its  institution.  The  occa- 
sion of  its  appointment  is  a  proof  of  this.  It  was  instituted 
to  crush  a  rebellion.  But  for  such  an  end,  of  what  use 
would  a  mere  court  of  judicature  be?  On  the  other  hand,  a 
council  of  sages,  a  supreme  senate,  composed  of  men  vene- 
rable fo]'  their  age,  and  of  approved  wisdom  and  integrity, 
would  be  of  the  greatest  efficacy.  There  can  be  no  doubt, 
therefore,  that  these  seventy  were  to  be  permanent  assistants 
of  Moses  in  his  councils.  They  were  to  aid  him  with  their 
advice  on  all  occasions,  to  preserve  peace  and  good  order 
among  the  people,  to  strengthen  the  sentiment  of  loyalty  to 
the  constitution,  and  to  prevent  those  mutinies  and  seditions, 
which,  if  permitted  to  break  out  and  rage,  would  in  the  end 
prove  fatal  to  the  government  and  the  nation,  "  In  this 
view,"  observes  Lowman,f  "  the  seventy  elders  will  appear 
to  be  designed,  not  only  as  a  standing  court  of  law  and 
equity,  to  assist  Moses  as  judge  in  causes  of  greater  conse- 
quence, and  in  appeals,  but  to  assist  the  judge  with  their  ad- 

*  C.  8.  V.  10.  scqq.  t  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  9. 


582  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

vice  on  every  occasion.  This  was  properly  to  bear  the  hnr- 
then  of  the  people  together  with  Moses,  that  he  might  not 
bear  it  himself  alone.  For  now  the  judge  would  not  bear  all 
the  envy  or  ill  will  of  the  people,  when  dissatisfied  or  nneasy 
with  any  part  of  the  administration  ;  for  the  common  people, 
though  they  know  very  little  of  the  reasons  of  any  adminis- 
tration, are  yet  apt  to  think  every  thing  wrong,  that  does  not 
please  them,  or  which  is  attended  with  difficulties  to  them- 
selves or  the  public.  Now,  a  council  of  seventy  persons,  of 
the  most  approved  wisdom  and  integrity,  would  at  least  share 
this  burthen  among  them  all,  instead  of  throwing  the  whole 
on  one  man.  And  it  would  be,  moreover,  an  ease  to  the 
judge's  own  mind,  and  make  him  more  resolved  in  any 
counsel  to  be  taken  or  executed,  when  it  should  be  with  the 
advice  and  approbation  of  a  multitude  of  counsellors,  in 
which  there  is  wisdom  and  safety.  And,  finally,  it  was 
proper  to  give  authority  and  respect  to  such  orders  as  should 
be  made  by  advice  of  persons,  whom  the  people  themselves 
had  approved  and  chosen,  as  eminent  for  their  wisdom  and 
integrity.  Consider,  then,  this  court  as  a  standing  senate, 
always  at  hand,  or  as  a  constant  privy  council  to  the  judge, 
and  we  have  a  most  wise  provision  for  the  easier  and  better 
government  of  the  whole  nation ;  and  this  will  make  a  con- 
siderable part  of  the  ctates-general  of  the  united  tribes." 

Still,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  senate  was  not  the 
government ;  it  was  only  a  constituent  part  of  the  govern- 
ment. It  was  but  the  council  of  the  nation  ;  the  head,  as  it 
were,  of  the  general  diet.  In  all  important  questions,  its 
decisions  were  to  be  submitted  to  the  congregation,  which, 
by  its  approbation,  enacted  them  into  laws.  Of  this  we  have 
a  clear  proof  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  Judges,  where  the 
ancients  are  recorded  to  have  called  upon  the  general  assem- 
bly of  the  people  to  deliberate  upon  a  matter,  and  give  their 
decision.  Even  when  the  Hebrews  demanded  a  king,  they 
were  far  from  wishing  to  change  this  part  of  the  constitution. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  583 

Hence  it  has  been  observed  by  the  abbe  Gueuee,*  that  "  it 
was  always  the  duty  of  the  king  to  govern  the  nation  accord- 
ing to  the  laws.  Their  authority  was  neither  despotic  nor 
arbitrary.  The  senate,  composed  of  the  most  distinguished 
members  of  all  the  tribes,  served  him  as  a  council.  He  took 
their  advice  in  all  important  affairs ;  and  if  any  thing  oc- 
curred, in  which  the  interest  of  the  whole  nation  was  con- 
cerned, the  congregation,  that  is  to  say,  the  assembly  of  the 
people,  was  convoked.  The  senate  proposed,  the  congrega- 
tion decided,  and  the  king  executed."  A  memorable  example 
of  this  we  have  in  1  Chron.  18  :  1-8.  David,  after  consult- 
ing with  his  counsellors  of  state,  in  regard  to  the  removal  of 
the  ark,  refers  the  final  decision  of  the  question  to  the  con- 
gregation of  Israel.  They,  upon  deliberation,  approve  and 
enact.  Immediately  thereupon,  David  proceeds  to  execute 
the  decree.  But  it  musi;  not  be  inferred  from  hence,  that  the 
general  assembly  never  took  the  initiative,  much  less  that  it 
had  not  the  right  of  so  doing.  Moses  tells  the  Hebrews,  that 
on  a  certain  occasion  he  made  a  proposition  to  them,  which 
they  approved  and  accepted ;  whereas,  on  another  occasion 
they  proposed  a  certain  measure  to  him,  which,  meeting  his 
cordial  approbation,  he  accepted  and  executed.f 

Such,  then,  were  the  leading  powers  of  the  Hebrew  senate. 
Let  us  inquire  by  what  limitations  they  were  confined  within 
their  just  bounds.  The  Jewish  law  opposed  itself  invincibly 
to  the  existence  of  great  landed  proprietors,  and  thus  pre- 
vented the  members  of  the  senate  from  uniting  the  influence 
of  vast  t<5rritorial  estates  to  that  which  they  derived  from 
their  office.  The  senator  received  no  salary  for  his  services. 
His  age  and  the  conditions  of  eligibility  to  the  senatorial 
dignity  served  as  a  guaranty  of  his  integrity.  The  decrees 
to  which  he  contributed,  extended  to  his  children,  his  friends, 
and  himself.     Out  of  the  senatorial  seat,  he  was  but  a  simple 

*  Lettres  de  quelques  Juift  a  Voltaire,  torn.  2,  lettr.  2, 
t  Deut.  i,  13,  22,  23. 


584  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

Israelite.  The  office  was  not  hereditary;  and  the  son  of  a 
senator  was  no  more,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  than  the  son  of 
the  humblest  citizen.  These,  however,  were  rather  moral 
than  legal  restraints.  But  the  sacerdotal  magistracy,  engaged 
by  its  very  nature  to  the  guardianship  of  the  law  ;  the  pro- 
phets, those  stern  state  censors  and  moralists,  who  launched 
the  most  unsparing  denunciations  against  all,  who  in  any 
way  abused  the  trusts  confided  to  them  ;  the  decisions  of  the 
oracle  ;  and  the  necessity  of  the  intervention  of  the  congrega- 
tion of  Israel  in  important  questions,  furnished  guaranties,  of 
a  positive  and  effective  character,  against  the  usurpation  and 
tyranny  of  the  Hebrew  senate.  Here  is  a  system  of  moral 
and  legal  restrictions  upon  power,  to  which  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  find  a  parallel  in  other  governments.  The  remark  of 
Blackstone  respecting  the  English  constitution,  is  equally  ap- 
plicable to  the  Hebrew  polity,  viz.  that  every  branch  of  it 
supports  and  is  supported,  regulates  and  is  regulated,  by  the 
rest.  The  senate,  the  congregation,  the  chief  magistrate,  the 
oracle,  the  Levitical  order,  and  the  prophetical  office,  consti- 
tuted so  many  checks  upon  each  other's  power,  so  many 
dykes  and  embankments  to  restrain  the  exercise  of  tyranny, 
so  many  combined  forces  to  give  the  machine  of  government 
a  safe  direction,  and  cause  it  to  move  in  the  line  of  the  public 
liberty  and  happiness. 

It  has  been  a  question  with  some,  whether  the  senate  of 
seventy,  instituted  by  Moses  on  the  occasion  of  the  rebellion 
in  Paran,  continued  permanent.  Calmet*  endeavored  to  dis- 
credit the  continued  existence  of  this  council.  In  this  opinion 
he  is  followed  by  Michaelis.f  But  the  common  and  more 
probable  opinion  is,  that  it  was  a  permanent  body.  Bossuet;}: 
says:  "To  maintain  the  law  in  its  vigor,  Moses  formed  an 
assembly  of  seventy  counsellors,  which  may  be  termed  the 
senate  of  Israel,  and  the  perpetual  council  of  the  nation." 

*  Dissert,  sur  la  Police  dos  anciens  Hebreux. 

j-  Hist.  Univ.  Pt.  2,  §  3.  J  Comment.  Art.  50. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  685 

The  abbe  de  Fleury*  observes  :  "  As  often  as  mention  is 
made  in  the  scripture  of  assemblies  and  public  affairs,  the 
elders  (or  senators)  are  put  in  the  first  place,  and  sometimes 
named  alone.  Thence  comes  the  expression  in  the  Psalms, 
exhorting  to  praise  God  in  the  congregation  of  the  people,  and 
in  the  seat  of  the  elders,  that  is,  the  public  council."  There 
is,  indeed,  a  strong  antecedent  probability  against  the  abolition 
of  this  council  on  the  death  of  Moses  ;  for,  as  Basnagef  well 
suggests,  "  if  that  great  le^^islator  needed  such  a  council, 
during  his  life,  it  must  have  been  still  more  necessary  to 
those  who  succeeded  him  in  the  administration  of  the  repub- 
lic." Salvador:}:  has  an  able  if  not  a  convincing  argument,  to 
prove,  that  the  senate  is  often  designated  in  the  sacred  books 
by  the  name  of  its  president,  or  of  the  general  judge,  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  senate  of  Venice  was  called  "  most 
serene  prince."  Thus,  when  the  Hebrews  say,  that  a  man 
judged  Israel,  he  thinks  the  expression  signifies,  that  he  gov- 
erned in  concurrence  with  the  senate.  The  argument,  by 
which  he  supports  this  view,  is  not  without  force ;  but  the 
reader,  who  would  judge  of  it,  is  referred  to  the  original 
work.  Undoubtedly,  the  senate  underwent  many  changes  in 
the  progress  of  time.  It  would  be  interesting,  but  it  does  not 
belong  to  my  present  work,  to  trace  these  revolutions.  I, 
therefore,  dismiss  the  subject  with  the  remark,  that,  what- 
ever vicissitudes  it  experienced,  it  appears  always  to  have 
maintained  its  existence. 

A  difficulty  will  have  occurred  to  the  reflecting  reader,  as 
be  has  followed  me  through  the  above  detail.  The  chapter 
professes  to  treat  of  the  Hebrew  senate ;  but,  in  reality,  it  has 
exhibited  two  distinct  councils,  one  instituted  in  Egypt,  and  the 
other  in  the  wilderness,  without  attempting  to  adjust  or  ex- 
jUin  their  relation  to  each  other.     This  is  a  difficulty,  not  a 

*  Manners  of  the  Anc.  Israelites,  c.  21. 

\  Histoire  des  Juifs,  1.  2,  c.  2. 

{  Hist,  des  Inst,  de  Moise,  1.  2.  c.  2. 


586  COMMENT AKTES    ON    THE 

little  formidable  in  appeai'ance.  Which  of  these  was  the 
senate  of  Israel  ?  Did  the  latter  supersede  the  former  ?  Or 
did  they  co-exist,  and  in  that  case,  was  there  any  union  be- 
tween them  ?  I  have  little  doubt,  that  Lowman*  has  hit 
upon  the  true  solution  of  the  difficulty,  and  I  shall  here  con- 
dense the  view,  which  he  has  taken  of  this  part  of  the  He- 
brew constitution.  His  idea  is,  that  the  original  senate,  com- 
posed of  the  princes  of  tribes  and  heads  of  families,  con- 
tinued to  exist,  after  the  institution  of  the  sanhedrim.  The 
grounds  of  this  opinion  are  as  follows  :  When  the  children 
of  Reuben  and  Gad  came  with  a  petition  to  have  their  settle- 
ment assigned  them  on  the  east  of  Jordan,  they  came  and 
spake  unto  Moses  and  Eleazar  the  priest,  and  unto  the  princes 
of  the  congregation,  f  Though  this  was  long  after  the  insti- 
tution of  the  sanhedrim,  yet  the  princes  of  the  congregation 
are  assembled  to  consider  the  proposal ;  as  they  had  been 
before  in  the  case  of  female  succession, :}:  and  as  they  were 
afterwards  upon  the  regulation  of  the  marriage  of  heiresses.§ 
When  Joshua  made  a  league  with  the  Gibeonites,  it  was 
confirmed  by  the  princes  of  the  congregation.!  Other  in- 
stances of  the  like  nature  might  be  cited,  but  let  these  suflSce. 
Kow,  as  these  persons  are  described  by  the  titles  of  princes 
and  chief  fathers  of  the  children  of  Israel,  it  is  plain,  that 
the  same  persons  must  be  meant,  who  v/ere  princes  of  tribes 
and  heads  of  families  before  the  institution  of  the  sanhedrim, 
and  whose  rank  and  authority  were  not  taken  away  by  the 
formation  of  that  court.  They  were  still  the  great  council  or 
senate  of  the  nation.  But  what,  then,  becomes  of  the  san- 
hedrim, instituted  by  Moses  ?  Both  classes  of  officers  are 
spoken  of  in  such  a  way,  as  to  show,  that  they  were  em- 
ployed in  the  great  affiiirs  of  the  nation.  Why,  then,  may 
we  not  conceive  of  the  sanhedrim  as  a  select  senate,  a  sort  of 
privy  council,  while  all  the  princes  of  Israel  still  had  session 

*  Civ.  Gov.  Heb  c.  9.  f  Numb,  xxxii.  1,  2.  J  Ibid.  27. 

§  Ibid,  36.  II  Joshua  ix.  15. 


LAWS   UF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBEEWS.  587 

and  vote  in  the  great  and  general  council  of  the  nation,  which, 
when  assembled,  was  called  by  the  ancient  style,  the  princes 
of  the  congregation.  This  may  be  the  reason,  why  the  elders 
of  the  sanhedrim  have  so  little  apparent  notice  taken  of 
them  ;  for,  when  the  general  national  senate  was  assembled, 
they  were  considered  only  as  particular  members  of  it. 

Lowman  conceives,  that  the  constitution  of  the  old  par- 
liament of  Paris  may  give  a  pretty  accurate  idea  of  the 
senate  of  Israel.  The  kings  assembled  the  great  men  of  the 
kingdom,  and  these  assemblies  were  called  the  king's  court 
or  parliament.  The  great  men,  who  attended  these  assem- 
blies were  styled  barons  of  the  kingdom,  and  afterwards 
peers  of  France.  They  were  the  bishops,  dukes,  earls,  and 
all  the  great  tenants,  who  held  immediately  of  the  crown ; 
but  as  it  was  not  easy  to  examine  fully  many  of  the  affairs, 
which  came  before  them,  the  kings  gave  commission  to  men 
of  abilities,  to  assist  with  their  care  and  counsels ;  and  these 
counsellors  were  called  masters  of  parliament.  In  the  par- 
liament of  Paris,  then,  all  the  peers  of  France  had  session 
and  vote,  but  the  ordinary  business  was  transacted  by  a 
Belect  number  of  counsellors.  Somewhat  after  this  manner, 
it  is  most  likely,  the  senate  of  Israel  was  constituted.  The 
elders  of  the  sanhedrim  formed  a  select  council,  to  assist  the 
chief  magistrate  on  ordinary  occasions ;  but  on  occasions  of 
greater  moment,  and  especially  when  the  states-general  were 
convened,  the  national  senate  of  Israel  consisted  of  princes 
of  the  tribes,  heads  of  families,  and  elders  of  the  sanhedrim. 
But  however  this  might  be,  and  whoever  the  persons  were 
who  composed  the  great  council  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  it  is 
clear  and  undoubted,  that,  under  the  style  of  princes,  chief 
fathers,  or  elders,  there  was  a  senate  of  the  whole  republic, 
who  assisted  the  judge  with  their  advice  in  affairs  of  moment. 
And  this  was  a  second  bond  of  political  union  between  the 
tribes 


588  COMMENTAEIES   ON   THE 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Hebrew  Commons. 

In  treating  this  subject,  three  inquiries  present  themselves. 
viz.  1.  Whether  a  house  of  commons,  or  jDopular  assembly, 
formed  a  part  of  the  Hebrew  constitution  ?  2.  If  so,  who 
composed  it  ?     3.  What  were  its  powers  ? 

The  first  of  these  interrogatories  must  be  answered  in  the 
affirmative.  It  is  an  undoubted  fact,  that  there  was  a  popu- 
lar branch  in  the  Hebrew  government.  This  body  was  called 
by  different  titles,  as  the  congregation,  the  congregation  of 
Israel,  all  the  assembly,  all  the  children  of  Israel,  and  the 
whole  congregation  of  the  Lord.  Moses  was  directed  to 
make  two  silver  trumpets,  and  the  following  law  was  enacted 
respecting  the  use  of  them.  "  And  when  they  shall  blow  with 
them,  all  the  assembly  shall  assemble  themselves  to  thee  at  the 
door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  And  if  they  blow 
but  with  one  trumpet,  then  the  princes,  which  are  heads  of 
the  thousands  of  Israel,  shall  gather  themselves  unto  thee."* 
Other  scriptures  might  be  cited,  but  this  passage  alone  is 
decisive ;  and,  indeed,  there  is  no  dispute  on  this  point 
among  those  who  have  written  on  the  Hebrew  institutions. 

In  regard  to  the  second  question,  viz.  as  to  who  composed 
the  congregation,  there  is  less  unanimity  of  opinion.  Low- 
manf  does  not  doubt,  from  its  being  described  in  expressions 
BO  full  and  emphatic,  as  "  all  the  congregation  of  Israel," 

*  Numb.  X.  2-4.  t  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  8. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREW'S.  589 

"  the  whole  congregation  of  Jehovah,"  and  the  like,  that 
every  free  Israelite  had  a  right  to  vote  in  this  assembly. 
Harrington*  is  of  the  same  opinion.  He  says  :  "  While  the 
whole  people  was  an  army,  Moses  could  propose  to  them  in 
body,  or  under  their  staves,  or  standards  of  their  camps  ;  then 
he  needed  not,  and  so  he  used  not,  any  representative."  Both 
these  writers  think,  that  there  were  difi'erent  manners  of 
holding  tliis  assembly,  the  people  sometimes  voting  in  mass, 
and  sometimes  by  deputies.  The  abbe  Gueneef  holds  the  like 
view.  "  The  assemblies  under  Moses,"  he  observes,  "  while 
the  Hebrews  formed  one  great  army,  very  much  resembled 
the  assemblies  of  the  people  at  Athens,  at  Lacedaemon,  and 
at  Rome ;  but  afterwards,  it  would  seem,  they  were  often 
composed  of  deputies,  or  representatives  of  the  people,  not 
unlike  the  parliaments  of  England  and  the  states  of  Holland." 
Salvador,:}:  the  learned  Jewish  author,  is  of  the  same  way  of 
thinking.  He  regards  it  as  the  inalienable  right  of  every 
Hebrew  citizen  to  have  session  and  vote  in  the  general  as- 
sembly, basing  it,  however,  upon  the  false  principle,  borrowed 
from  Rousseau, §  that  the  people,  properly  so  called,  have  that 
in  common  with  the  Deity,  that  they  cannot  be  rigidly  repre- 
sented but  by  themselves.  Jahn||  also  expresses  the  opinion, 
that,  at  least  upon  very  important  occasions,  as  many  of  the 
common  people  as  chose  to  attend,  took  part  in  the  delibera- 
tions and  resolves  of  this  body. 

I  cannot  concur  in  the  view  of  these  learned  men.  More 
just  and  scriptural  appears  to  me  the  opinion  of  Michaelis,^ 
that  the  Hebrew  people  never  voted  as  a  pure  democracy,  but 
always,  in  the  wilderness  as  well  as  after  their  settlement  in 
Canaan,  by  known  and  authorized  representatives.     His  ar- 

*  Commonwealth  of  Israel,  c.  3, 

f  Let.tres  de  quelques  Juifs  a  Voltaire,  Pt.  4.  L.  2.  Note. 

X  Kist.  des  Insts.  de  Moise,  1.  2.  c.  2. 

§  Contr.  See.  1.  4.  c.  15.  ||  Heb.  Com.  B.  2.  S.  14. 

^  Art.  45. 


690  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

gnraent  in  support  of  this  view  seems  to  me  conclusive  ;  and 
I  therefore  present  it  in  his  own  words  :  "  From  various  pas- 
sages in  the  Pentateuch,  we  find  that  Moses,  at  making 
known  any  laws,  had  to  convene  the  whole  congregation  of 
Israel  ;  and  in  like  manner,  in  the  book  of  Joshua,  we  see, 
that  when  diets  were  held,  the  whole  congregation  were  as- 
sembled. If  on  such  occasions  every  individual  had  had  to 
give  his  vote,  everything  would  certainly  have  been  democra- 
tic in  the  highest  degree;  but  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  how, 
without  very  particular  regulations  made  for  the  purpose, 
(which,  however,  we  nowhere  find,)  order  could  have  been 
preserved  in  an  assembly  of  six  hundred  thousand  men,  their 
votes  accurately  numbered,  and  acts  of  violence  prevented. 
If,  however,  we  consider  that,  while  Moses  is  said  to  have 
spoken  to  the  whole  congregation,  he  could  not  possibly  be 
heard  by  six  hundred  thousand  people,  (for  what  human 
voice  could  be  sufficiently  strong  to  be  so  ?)  all  our  fears  and 
difficulties  will  vanish  ;  for  this  circumstance  alone  must  con- 
vince any  one,  that  Moses  could  only  have  addressed  himself 
to  a  certain  number  of  persons,  deputed  to  represent  the  rest 
of  the  Israelites.  Accoi'dingly,  in  Numb.  1  :  16,  we  find 
mention  of  such  persons.  In  contradistinction  to  the  common 
Israelites,  they  are  there  denominated  '  those  wont  to  be  called 
to  the  convention.'  In  the  16th  chapter  of  the  same  book, 
ver.  2,  they  are  styled  '  chiefs  of  the  community,  that  are 
called  to  the  convention,'  I  notice  this  passage  particularly, 
because  it  appears  from  it,  that  two  hundred  and  fifty  persons 
of  this  description,  who  rose  up  against  Moses,  became  to 
him  objects  of  extreme  terror ;  which  they  could  not  have 
been,  if  their  voices  had  not  been,  at  the  same  time,  the 
voices  of  their  families  and  tribes.  Still  more  explicit,  and 
to  the  point,  is  the  passage,  Deut.  29  :  9,  where  Moses,  in  a 
speech  to  the  whole  people,  says,  '  Ye  stand  this  day  all  of 
you  before  the  Lord  your  God,  your  heads,  your  tribes,  (that 
is,  chiefs  of  tribes,)  your  elders,  your  scribes,  all  Israel,  in- 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  591 

fants,  wives,  strangers  that  are  in  your  camp,  from  fbe  hewer 
of  wood,  to  the  drawer  of  water.'  Now,  as  Moses  could  not 
possibly  speak  loud  enough  to  be  heard  by  two  millions  and 
a  half  of  people,  (for  to  so  many  did  the  Israelites  amount, 
women  and  children  included,)  it  must  be  manifest,  that  the 
first-named  persons  represented  the  people,  to  whom  they 
again  repeated  the  words  of  Moses.  Whether  these  repre- 
sentatives were  on  every  occasion  obliged  to  collect  and 
declare  the  sense  of  their  constituents,  or  whether,  like  the 
members  of  the  English  house  of  commons,  they  acted  in  the 
plenitude  of  their  own  power  for  the  general  good,  without 
taking  instructions  from  their  constituents,  I  find  nowhere 
expressly  determined  ;  but,  methinks,  from  a  perusal  of  the 
Bible,  I  can  scarcel}'^  doubt,  that  the  latter  was  the  case. 
"Who  these  representatives  were,  may,  in  some  measure,  be 
understood  from  Josh.  23  :  2,  and  24 :  1.  They  would  seem 
to  have  been  of  two  sorts.  To  some,  their  office  as  judges 
gave  a  right  to  appear  in  the  assembly  ;  and  these  were  not 
necessarily  of  the  same  family  in  which  they  exercised  that 
ofiSce.  Others,  again,  had  a  seat  and  a  voice  in  the  diet,  as 
the  heads  of  families." 

But  the  particular  constitution  of  the  popular  branch  of  the 
Hebrew  government,  as  to  the  persons  composing  it,  is  a 
matter  comparatively  indifferent.  The  material  part  of  the 
inquiry,  which  will  be  found  eminently  worthy  of  our  atten- 
tion, relates  to  the  functions,  which  that  body  exercised. 
These  were  of  a  grave  and  important  kind,  and  such  as  to 
evince  the  supremacy  of  the  popular  will  under  this  constitu- 
tion. A  few  instances,  chosen  out  of  many,  will  illustrate 
the  powers  confided  to  this  department  of  the  government. 
We  shall  find  them  broad  and  comprehensive,  extending  to 
the  election  of  magistrates,  the  management  of  foreign  rela- 
tions, the  adjudication  of  civil  and  criminal  causes,  and  the 
care  of  ecclesiastical  affairs. 

In  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Exodus,  we  have  a  deeply  in- 


592  COMMENTAKIES    ON   THE 

teresting  account  of  tlie  manner  in  which  God  was  chosen 
king  of  the  Hebrew  people,  and  the  laws  adopted,  which  he 
proposed  for  their  government.  Moses,  having  received  a 
commission  to  make  the  proposition  to  the  nation,  "  catne 
and  called  for  the  elders  of  the  people,  and  laid  before  their 
faces  all  these  words,  which  Jehovah  commanded  him.  And 
all  the  people  answered  together,  and  said,  all  that  Jehovah 
hath  spoken  we  will  do.  And  Moses  returned  the  words  of 
the  people  nnto  Jehovah."  Here  we  have  an  account  of  the 
form  in  which  questions  were  proposed  and  resolved  in  the 
national  legislature.  It  is  the  just  and  philosophical  remark 
of  Lowman  on  this  passage,  that  legal  forms  explain  the  true 
powers  of  any  part  of  a  constitution  much  better  than  general 
arguments.  Let  the  reader  observe  how  closely  this  form  of 
voting  resembles  that  called  a  rogatio  among  the  Romans. 
A  proposal  from  the  senate  to  the  people  was  in  these  words  ; 
"  Is  it  your  will,  O  Romans,  and  do  you  resolve  it  ?"  To 
which  the  response,  if  affirmative,  was  :  "  We  will,  and  re- 
solve it."  In  the  above  election,  the  elders  only  are  men- 
tioned by  name  ;  but  it  is  manifest  from  the  expression,  "  all 
the  people  answered  and  said,"  that  it  was  the  act  of  the 
general  diet  of  Israel.  The  term  elders  was  not  restricted  to 
any  one  class  of  functionaries,  and  it  is  certainly  sometimes 
applied  to  the  members  of  the  popular  branch.  And  here,  I 
may  observe  by  the  way,  we  have  another  proof,  that  the 
congregation  was  a  representative  body,  and  not  the  whole 
body  of  the  people.  It  was  certainly  a  select  assembly, 
which,  on  this  occasion,  responded  to  the  proposal  of  Moses; 
yet  it  is  stated  in  the  broadest  terms,  "  all  the  people  an- 
swered." 

The  appointment  of  J»)shua  to  be  the  successor  of  Moses 
appears,  from  the  record  of  it  in  the  twenty-seventh  chapter 
of  Numbers,  to  have  been  made,  or  at  least  confirmed,  by  the 
popular  vote  in  the  national  diet.  He  was  to  be  set  before 
"  all  the  congregation  ;"  and,  when  thus  proposed,  he  appears 


LAWS    OF   THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  593 

to  have  been  elected  by  their  vote  to  the  chief  magistracy  of 
Israel. 

So  also  Saul,  though  designated  to  the  regal  office  by  the 
lot,  was  nevertheless  chosen  king  by  the  great  national  diet, 
— the  congregation  of  the  people.  Afterwards,  to  quiet  the 
dissatisfaction  of  certain  malecontents,  Samuel  summoned 
the  people  l)y  their  representatives  to  Gilgal,  "  to  renew  the 
kingdom  there  ;"  that  is,  to  elect  Saul  king  a  second  time. 
"And  all  the  people  went  to  Gilgal,"  says  the  historian, 
"  and  there  they  made  Saul  king  before  the  Lord  in  Gilgal."* 
"When  Adonijah,  in  anticipation  of  his  father  David's  death, 
endeavored  to  seize  upon  the  cupreme  authority,  the  latter, 
by  a  royal  edict,  caused  Solomon  to  be  proclaimed  king. 
But  he  immediately  summoned  the  parliament  of  the  realm, 
and  proposed  Solomon  as  his  successor;  and  the  history 
adds,  "  They  made  Solomon,  the  son  of  David,  king  the 
second  time.  *  -  *  Then  Solomon  sat  on  the  throne,  *  *  * 
and  all  Israel  obeyed  him," — evidently  as  being  the  sovereign 
of  their  own  choice.f  Josephus  informs  us  that,  when  Moses 
announced  the  appointment  of  Aaron  to  the  priesthood  by 
Jehovah,  he  took  pains  to  impress  the  assembly  with  a  sense 
of  his  brother's  great  merits ;  whereupon,  he  adds,  the  He- 
brews gave  their  approbation  to  him  whom  God  had  ap- 
pointed. Jeroboam  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  made 
king  by  the  congregation  of  Israel.:}: 

These  instances  sufficiently  evince  the  authority  of  the 
popular  voice,  through  its  representatives,  in  the  election  of 
the  national  rulers. 

The  management  of  the  foreign  relations  of  the  nation 
belonged,  in  part,  to  the  congregation.  This  is  evident  from 
what  occurred  in  the  case  of  the  Gibeonites,  soon  after  the 
passage  of  the  Jordan.  Joshua,  deceived  by  their  plausible 
tale,  made  with  them  a  treaty  of  peace,  which  was  confirmed 

*  1  Sam.  X.  17-27.  f  1  Chron.  xxix.  22,  23. 

I  1  Kings  xii.  20. 
38 


594  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

by  the  oatli  of  the  senate  of  princes.  But  when  the  imposi- 
tion was  discovered,  the  congregation  was  loud  in  its  com- 
plaints, and  could  with  difhculty  be  induced  to  give  its  assent 
to  the  arrangement.  It  seems  a  fair  inference  from  this  relar 
tion,  that  a  convention  of  peace,  though  made  by  judge  and 
senate,  still  needed  the  ratification  of  the  people,  in  their 
national  assembly,  in  order  to  its  full  and  binding  authority. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  congregation  extended  also  to  civil 
causes.  The  question  of  female  succession,  in  default  of  male 
heirs,  was,  by  petition  from  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad, 
laid  before  Moses,  the  priest,  the  princes,  and  all  the  congre- 
gation. Their  father,  they  alleged,  had  died  without  sons ; 
and  their  request  was,  that  they  might  be  constituted  his 
heirs.  The  question,  being  a  novel  one,  was  referred,  by  the 
other  departments  of  the  government,  to  the  oracle.  The  re- 
sponse was,  that  the  demand  of  the  young  women  was  reason- 
able, and  ought  to  be  granted.  Thereupon  a  decree  was  passed 
to  that  effect,  and  a  law  was  enacted  to  settle  the  matter  of 
female  succession  for  all  after  ages.  Here,  by  the  way,  we 
Tiave  the  union  of  the  tribes  in  the  four  departments  of  the 
government  pretty  plainly  referred  to.  Here  is  the  chief 
magistrate  of  the  nation.  Here  is  the  oracle  of  Jehovah. 
Here  is  the  senate  of  princes.  And  here,  finally,  is  the  con- 
gregation of  all  Israel.*  The  body,  before  which  this  ques- 
tion was  brought,  was  an  assembly  of  the  states-general  of 
Israel,  composed  of  judge,  senate,  and  commons ;  and  the  his- 
tory of  the  afiair  shows  plainly,  that  questions  of  this  nature 
were  properly,  according  to  the  Hebrew  constitution,  brought 
befcie  them. 

To  the  congregation  belonged  likewise  the  right  of  taking 
cognizance  of  criminal  matters.  It  was  expressly  charged 
"with  judging  between  the  slayer  and  the  avenger  of  blood  : 
■*'Then  the  congregation  shall  judge  between  the  slayer  and 
the  revenger  of  blood  according  to  these  judgments :  And  the 

*  Numb,  xxvii.  1-9. 


LAWS  OF  THE  AKOIENT  HEBREWS.  595 

congregation  sliall  deliver  the  slayer  out  of  the  hand  of  the 
revenger  of  blood,  and  the  congregation  shall  restore  him  to 
the  city  of  his  refuge,  whither  he  was  fled  :  and  he  shall  abide 
in  it  unto  the  death  of  the  high  priest,  which  was  anointed 
with  the  holy  oil."*  It  matters  not  whether  the  congregation 
here  spoken  of  was  provincial  or  national ;  for,  whatever 
rights  vested  in  the  lower  assembly,  would  undoubtedly  inhere 
in  the  higher. 

An  instance  of  the  power  of  the  Hebrew  commons  in  crim- 
inal questions  occurs  in  the  history  of  Saul,  and  is  too  inter- 
esting to  be  passed  in  silence. f  Upon  a  certain  occasion, 
Saul  had  given  an  order,  forbidding  his  army  to  taste  food, 
during  a  day's  encounter  with  the  Philistines.  Whoever  vio- 
lated the  prohibition  was  devoted  to  certain  death  by  the 
oath  of  the  king.  Jonathan,  to  whose  prudence  and  valor, 
under  God,  the  victory  was  entirely  owing,  ignorant  both  of 
the  order  and  the  anathema,  and  worn  down  with  the  fatigues 
of  battle,  had  eaten  a  little  wild  honey.  Upon  his  confession 
of  the  fault,  Saul  fiercely  exclaims,  "God  do  so  to  me,  and 
more  also  ;  for  thou  shalt  surely  die,  Jonathan."  This  is  very 
positive,  and  seems  irreversible.  Yet  the  people  step  in,  and 
say,  "  Shall  Jonathan  die,  who  hath  wrought  this  great  salva- 
tion for  Israel?  God  forbid  !  As  Jehovah  liveth,  there  shall 
not  an  hair  of  his  head  fall  to  the  ground.  So  the  people 
rescued  (literally  redeemed)  Jonathan."  Bishop  Patrick  truly 
observes  on  this  place,  that  the  people  did  not  rescue  Jonathan 
by  violence  or  force.  Yet  his  further  opinion,  and  that  of  the 
learned  Grotius,  that  the  rescue  was  effected  by  petition, 
seems  not  at  all  consistent  with  the  expressions  employed. 
"As  Jehovah  liveth,  there  shall  not  an  hair  of  his  head  fall  to 
the  ground,"  has  very  little  the  sound  of  an  humble  request 
to  a  master.  It  is  more  like  the  voice  of  conscious  author- 
ity, clear  and  strong  in  the  expression  of  an  undoubted  right. 
Neither  is  the  expression,  "  redeemed  Jonathan,"  properly 

*  Numb.  XXXV.  24,  25.  f  1  Sam.  xiv.  42  seqq. 


59^ 


COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 


descriptive  of  an  act  of  mutiny  and  rebellion.  There  re- 
mains, then,  but  the  conclusion,  that  it  was  an  exercise  of 
rightful  authority,  whereby  the  unconscious  oifender  was  par- 
doned, and  the  sentence  of  death  reversed,  in  the  general 
court  of  Israel.  It  is  thus  that  Lowmau  interprets  the 
procedure.* 

Ecclesiastical  affairs  were,  also,  to  some  extent  at  least, 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  and  control  of  the  Hebrew  com- 
mons. "When  David  wished  to  remove  the  ark  to  Jerusalem, 
he  would  not  do  so,  without  a  formal  vote  of  the  congregation 
to  that  effect.f  On  the  accession  of  Solomon  to  the  throne, 
when  Abiathar  was  deposed  from  the  office  of  high  priest, 
and  Zadok  elevated  to  that  dignity,  it  was  "  all  the  congre- 
gation," the  great  assembly  of  the  people,  that  established 
the  latter  in  the  high-priesthood,  and  caused  him  to  receive 
the  sacerdotal  unction,  which  constituted  a  chief  part  of  iiie 
inaugural  ceremony.:|: 

In  the  brief  digest  of  the  English  constitution,  which  Mon- 
tesquieu has  given  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  eleventh  book 
of  his  Spirit  of  Laws,  he  makes  the  following  remark : 
"  Whoever  shall  read  the  admirable  treatise  of  Tacitus  on 
the  manners  of  the  Germans,  will  find,  that  it  is  from  them 
the  English  have  borrowed  the  idea  of  their  political  govern- 
ment. This  beautiful  system  was  invented  first  in  the 
woods."  On  referring  to  the  passage  in  Tacitus,  cited  by  the 
learned  jurist,  it  will  be  found,  that  the  historian  says  : — 
"  Ordinary  affairs  were  treated  in  the  council  of  chiefs  ;  great 
affairs,  in  tlie  assembly  of  the  people  ;  yet  so  that  those  mat- 
ters, on  which  it  belonged  to  the  people  to  decide,  were  de- 
bated by  the  chiefs."§  On  this  Salvador  f  has  well  observed, 
that  Montesquieu  might  have  traced  the  idea  of  the  English 
constitution  to  a  higher  source,  and  made  it  rest  upon  bases 

*  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  C.  8. 

t  1  Chron.  xiii.  2-4.  J  1  Chron.  xxix.  20-22. 

2  De  Morib.  Germ.  J  15.  |i  Hist,  des  Insts.  de  Moise,  1.  2.  c.  2. 


LAWS    (IF   THE    AJJCIENT   HEBREWS.  597 

more  sacred  in  the  eyes  of  modern  nations.  Tliis  beautiful 
system  of  government  invented  in  the  woods  indeed !  Its 
true  source  is  the  inspired  legislation  of  Moses.  Besides 
their  military  chiefs  (the  council  to  which  Tacitus  referred), 
the  Hebrews  had  a  senate  of  civilians,  as  well  as  a  house  ot 
commons.  They  recognized  three  distinct  crowns ; — the 
crown  of  the  priests,  the  crown  of  the  law,  and  the  crown 
of  the  king ;  in  other  words  the  sacerdotal  or  conservative 
power,  the  legislative  power,  and  the  executive  power. 
Besides,  how  many  of  the  English  have  ever  read  Tacitus  ? 
Whereas  the  bible,  found  in  every  house,  has  exercised  the 
greatest  influence  over  their  manners  and  institutions,  and 
has  produced  more  than  one  point  of  resemblance  between 
the  ancient  people  of  Israel  and  the  first  nation  of  modern 
times,  which  has  comprehended  the  whole  power  of  law,  and 
has  founded  its  polity  on  the  principle,  that  laws  ought  to 
govern,  rather  than  the  will  and  pleasure  of  the  prince. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Hebrew  Oracle. 


The  fact  that  the  original  sovereignty  of  the  Hebrew  state, 
though  by  the  free  consent  and  suffrage  of  the  people,  was 
vested  in  Jehovah,  distinguished  this  government  from  all 
others,  ever  known  among  men.  This  circumstance  would 
naturally  lead  us  to  look  for  some  peculiarity  of  organization 
in  the  political  structure.  Nor  does  the  history  of  the 
government,  contained  in  the  writings  of  its  founder,  disap- 
point such  expectation.     This  organic  peculiarity  appears  in 


598  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

the  oracle  of  Jehovah,  as  an  essential  part  of  the  civil  con 
stitution. 

We  have  already  seen,*  that  there  was  a  strong  theocratic 
element  in  the  Israelitish  constitution ;  so  strong,  indeed, 
that  the  government  has  been  commonly  called  a  theocracy. 
In  what  manner  and  through  what  agencies,  did  this  element 
in  the  government  make  itself  practically  felt  ?  The  general 
answer  to  this  question  is  : — It  was  by  means  of  the  oracle 
of  Jehovah.  "With  the  view  of  shedding,  if  possible,  some 
light  on  this  obscure  but  interesting  point,  I  propose  to  in- 
quire briefly  into  the  nature  and  functions  of  the  Hebrew 
oracle,  to  institute  a  comparison  between  it  and  the  oracles 
of  pagan  antiquity,  and  to  vindicate  the  wisdom  and  benevo- 
lence of  such  an  institution,  against  the  sneers  and  sophistries 
of  infidelity,  by  showing  its  admirable  adaptation  to  the 
infant  state  of  the  world  and  the  church. 

The  oracle  played  a  conspicuous  and  most  important  part 
in  the  establishment  and  administration  of  the  Jewish  theo- 
cracy. That  incomparable  summary  of  the  Mosaic  code, 
and  of  all  moral  duty, — the  decalogue, — was  uttered,  amid 
terrific  thunderings  and  lightenings,  from  the  mysterious  sym- 
bol of  the  Divinity,  in  an  articulate  voice,  which  reached 
every  ear,  and  penetrated  every  heart,  and  awed  every  under- 
standing, of  the  mighty  multitude,  that  crowded  around  the 
base  of  mount  Sinai.  So  also  all  the  rest  of  the  political, 
civil,  moral,  and  religious  laws  of  the  Hebrews  were  dictated 
by  the  oracle,  though  they  were  afterwaj-d,  as  observed  by 
Dr.  Spring,  in  his  "  Discourses  on  the  Obligations  of  the 
World  to  the  Bible,"  passed  npon  and  adopted  by  the  legal 
assemblies  of  the  nation.  The  oracle,  in  the  form  of  the 
cloudy  pillar,  regulated  the  motions  of  the  Israelitish  armies : 
"  For  when  the  cloud  was  taken  up  from  the  tabernacle,  the 
children  of  Israel  journeyed  ;  and  when  the  cloud  rested, 
there  the  children  of  Israel  pitched  their  tents  ;  at  the  com- 

*  B.  2,  C.  2. 


LAWS    OF    THE   ARCIENT    BEBREWS.  599 

mand  of  Jehovah  thej  journeyed,  at  the  command  of  Jeho- 
vah they  pitched."*  How  far  the  oracle  directed  the  military 
affairs  of  the  Hebrews,  plainly  appears  in  the  history  of  the 
Canaanitish  wars,  and  particularly  in  the  story  of  the  siege 
and  capture  of  Jericho.f  In  the  earlier  periods  of  the  com- 
monwealth, the  oracle  was  constantly  appealed  to  on  ques- 
tions of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  law.  in  settling  principles  of 
state  policy,  and  generally  in  affairs  of  moment,  appertaining 
to  the  public  administration.  "In  the  time  of  Moses,"  ob- 
serves Michaelis,:}:  "  the  oracle  was  unquestionably  very  con- 
spicuous. God  himself  gave  laws  to  the  Israelites  ;  decided 
difficult  points  of  justice  ;  was  constantly  visible  in  the  pillar 
of  cloud  and  fire ;  and  inflicted  punishments,  not  according 
to  the  secret  procedure  of  providence,  but  in  the  most  mani- 
fest manner."  The  constitution  of  the  Hebrew  judges,  both 
higher  and  lower,  the  election  of  civil  raleio,  the  coguiz.mce 
of  many  causes,  some  in  the  first  instance,  and  others  on 
appeal,  were  branches  of  the  sovereignty  of  Jehovah,  as  king 
of  Israel.  The  use  of  the  oracle  in  deciding  difficult  cases 
in  law,  is  the  more  worthy  of  note,  as  it  serves  to  explain  the 
constitution  with  respect  to  appeals.  It  was  thus  that  the 
oracle  decided  the  question,  how  persons  defiled  by  a  dead 
body  should  keep  the  passover.§  Thus  also  the  oracle  de- 
termined the  question  of  female  succession,  in  the  case  of  the 
daughters  of  Zelophehad.  I  And  thus  it  was  the  oracle, 
again,  which  declared  the  punishment  of  sabbath  breaking.^ 
Hence  it  may  be  seen,  that  the  last  resort  both  in  civil  and 
criminal  cases,  especially  when  new  and  difficult  questions 
were  involved,  was  in  the  oracle,  and  not  in  the  opinion  of 
the  high  priest  alone,  nor  of  the  judge  alone,  nor  of  both  con- 
jointly with  the  senate  and  congregation,  unless  they  were 
fully  agreed.  If  a  difficulty  arose,  the  last  appeal  was  to  the 
oracle ;  in  whose  decision,  the  high  priest  did  not  give  his 

*  Numb.  ix.  17,  18.  f  Josh.  yi.  X  Comment.  Art.  35. 

2  Numb.  ix.  6-10.  ||  NumW.  xxvii.  1-9.  ^  Numb.  xv.  32-36. 


600  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

private  judgment,  but  tLe  oracle  itself  gave  final  judgment 
in  the  case.* 

The  ])erson  charged  with  consulting  the  oracle,  was  the 
high  priest.  An  objector  may  here  ask  :  "  Did  not  this  open 
the  door  to  corruption  ?  Might  not  an  ambitious  pontifi* 
abuse  such  a  trust  to  unrighteous  ends  ?"  This  difilcultv 
may  be  best  met  by  explaining  to  whom  the  consultation 
of  the  oracle  was  permitted ;  the  occasions  on  which  it 
might  be  consulted  ;  and  the  probable  manner  of  the  con- 
sultation. 

The  oracle  could  not  be  interrogated  by  any  mere  private 
individual ;  not  even  by  the  high  priest  himself,  in  his  per- 
sonal capacity.  This  was  permitted  only  to  the  chief  magis- 
trate, or  other  high  functionary  of  the  government.  The 
occasions,  on  which  the  advice  of  the  oracle  could  be  asked, 
must  be  of  a  public  nature.  The  matter  of  consultation  must 
relate  to  a  question  of  public  policy,  of  public  morals,  or  of 
religious  faith.  Neither  could  the  consultation  take  place  in 
a  clandestine  way.  The  person,  proposing  the  question  to 
the  high  priest,  remained  with  him  during  the  ceremony. 
Josephus  affirms,  that  any  person  who  chose  might  be  pre- 
sent on  such  occasions. f  This  would  be  an  effectual  guard 
against  collusion,  and  an  ample  guarantee  for  the  fairness  of 
the  transaction.  The  office  of  the  high  priest,  in  this  parti- 
cular, was  that  of  a  mediator,  or  middle  man.  He  was 
herein  simply  tlie  channel  of  communication  between  the 
Hebrew  state  and  its  Divine  head.  It  is  remarkable,  that 
there  is  not  an  instance  on  record,  in  the  Jewish  annals  of  a 
high  priest,  who  abused  this  trust  to  unworthy  objects. 

The  opinion  of  learned  and  judicious  authors,  as  to  the 
manner  of  taking  the  sense  of  the  oracle,  is  this  :  The  high 

*  See  Lowm.  on  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  11. 

f  See  in  confirmation  of  these  views  Numb,  xxvii.  21,  and  Prideaux's 
Connex.  vol.  1,  p.  155  seqq.  with  the  authorities  cited  by  him.  Also 
Josephus  Antiq.  1.  3,  c.  10. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBEEWS.  601 

priest  clothed  in  his  pontifical  garments,  and  having;  on  tho 
breastplate  of  judgment,  in  which  were  the  mysterious  urim 
and  thummim,  symbolical  of  the  clearness  and  fulness  of 
the  oracular  responses,  presented  himself  before  the  veil  of 
the  tabernacle,  over  against  the  mercy  seat, — the  immediate 
residence  of  the  Divine  presence.  The  magistrate,  who  came 
to  consult  the  oracle,  stood  directly  behind  him,  and  pro- 
pounded the  question,  which  was  repeated  by  the  priest. 
The  answer  was  returned  in  an  audible  voice,  in  terms  ex- 
plicit, direct,  and  unambiguous.  This  explains  the  reason 
why  the  holy  of  holies,  wheie  the  mercy  seat  stood,  is  so 
often  called  the  oracle.  It  was  because  from  thence,  God 
returned  answers  to  those,  who  came  to  ask  counsel  of  him, 
on  behalf  of  the  public  conscience,  or  the  public  admin- 
istration. 

That  the  responses  were  returned  in  an  articulate  voice, 
seems  probable  from  several  expressions  of  holy  writ.  "When 
the  ten  commandments  were  given  on  Sinai,  it  is  said,  that 
"  God  SPAKE  all  these  words."*  In  regard  to  the  subsequent 
laws,  it  is  declared  that  "  Jehovah  spake  unto  Moses,  saying."f 
When  Moses  went  into  the  tabernacle  to  learn  the  divine 
will,  it  is  recorded  of  him  that  "  he  heard  the  voice  of  one 
SPEAKING  to  him  from  off  the  mercy  seat.:]:  Similar  forms  of 
expression  are  used  in  reference  to  the  like  occasions  in  after 
ages,  from  all  which  the  conclusion  seems  warranted,  that 
the  responses  of  the  Hebrew  oracle  were  rendered  in  an 
audible  voice,  and  without  secrecy,  craft,  or  ambiguity  of  any 
kind.§ 

I  have  said  above,  that  the  person  charged  with  consulting 
the  oracle  was  the  high  priest.  The  observation,  however, 
ought  not  to  be  omitted,  that  there  were  two  ways,  in  which 
the  oracle  expressed  its  will,  in  one  of  which  the  high  priest 

*  Exod.  XX.  1.  f  Exod.  passim.  %  Numb.  vii.  89. 

^  Numb.  ix.  9.  Judg.  i.  1-2.  xx,  18,  23,  28.  1  Sam.  x.  23 ;  and  many 
other  places. 


60^  COMMENTARIES    O^    THE 

had  no  share.  This  was  by  a  voice  from  the  shekinah  di- 
rectly. It  was  in  this  way  that  the  ten  commandments  were 
given,  in  which  case  the  oracle  was  heard  by  the  whole  He- 
brew nation.  In  this  manner,  also,  the  other  civil  laws, 
given  at  Sinai,  were  dictated  to  Moses.  "What  the  exact 
nature  of  the  phenomenon,  called  the  shekinah,  was,  we  can- 
not with  certainty  determine.  "  We  can  only  say,  that  it 
appears  to  have  been  a  concentrated  glowing  brightness,  a 
preternatural  splendor,  an  effulgent  something,  which  was 
appropriately  expressed  by  the  term  glory  ;  but  whether,  in 
philosophical  strictness,  it  was  material  or  immaterial,  it  is 
probably  impossible  to  determine." 

But  notwithstanding  this,  it  still  remains  true,  that  the 
ordinary  mode  of  consulting  the  oracle,  was  through  the  high 
priest,  by  urim  and  thummim.  It  is  not  material  to  the  illus- 
tration of  this  part  of  the  Israelitish  constitution,  that  we 
should  know  precisely  what  these  terms  mean.  Yet  it  may 
gratify  the  reader  to  be  informed  of  the  several  opinions, 
entertained  by  the  learned  on  this  point.  All  that  the  scrip- 
ture says  concerning  urim  and  thummim,  is,  that  they  were 
something  put  by  Moses  into  the  breast-plate  of  the  liigh 
priest.  The  breast-plate  was  a  piece  of  cloth  doubled,  of  a 
span  square,  in  which  were  twelve  precious  stones,  set  in 
sockets  of  gold,  and  having  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel  engraved  on  them.  In  this,  then,  the  urim  and  thum- 
mim were  placed.  Four  principal  opinions  have  obtained  as 
to  what  they  were.  The  first  is  that  they  were  two  small 
images,  which,  enclosed  within  the  fold  of  the  breast  plate, 
gave  out  the  oracular  answers.  This  is  the  idea  of  Philo 
Judaeus,  in  which  he  has  been  followed  by  later  writers.  But 
it  is  too  heathenish  a  conceit  to  be  for  a  moment  entertained. 
It  has  been  well  characterized  as  "  a  Talmudical  camel,  which 
no  one  in  his  wits  can  ever  swallow."  A  second  opinion  is, 
that  the  urim  and  thummim  consisted  in  a  peculiar  radiance. 
or   shining  light,    with  which   certain    of  the   letteris,   en- 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANOEENT    HEBREWS.  603 

graven  on  the  breast-plate,  were  invested,  when  a  question 
had  been  put;  so  that  these  luminous  characters,  being  pro- 
perly arranged,  gave  the  answer  to  the  inquiry.  This  was 
the  notion  of  Josephus.  Dr.  Prideaux  has  triumphantly 
refuted  it ;  but  his  answer  is  too  long  to  be  inserted  here.  A 
third  opinion  is  that  of  Michael  is,  in  which  he  is  followed  by 
Jahn.  These  writers  think,  that  the  urim  and  thummim 
were  simply  a  sacred  box.  They  suppose  it  probable,  that 
three  stones  were  used,  one  of  them  marked  with  an  aflSr- 
mative  ;  a  second,  with  a  negative  ;  and  the  third,  Hank  ; — ■ 
and  that  Moses  commanded  these  to  be  kept  within  the 
doubling  of  the  breast-plate  of  the  priest.  This  of  course 
would  require  the  question  always  to  be  put  in  such  a  way, 
that  it  could  be  answered  with  a  simple  yes  or  no.  But 
there  are  various  responses  in  the  scriptures,  inconsistent  with 
the  truth  of  this  theory ;  especially  that  contained  in  2  Sam. 
5 :  23,  24,  where  explicit  and  detailed  directions  are  given. 
The  fourth  opinion  is  that  of  Prideaux,  who  thinks  that  by 
nrira  and  thummim  we  are  not  to  understand  any  thing 
visible  and  corporeal,  but  only  a  divine  virtue  and  power, 
given  to  the  breast-plate  in  consecration,  of  obtaining  oracu- 
lar answers  from  God,  whenever  counsel  was  asked  of  him 
by  the  high  priest,  in  the  prescribed  manner,  jimid  this 
conflict  of  opinion,  one  thing  seems  sufficiently  evident,  that 
the  answers  were  rendered  in  an  audible  voice,  and  that  the 
breast-plate,  bearing  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes,  invested 
the  high  priest  with  his  true  representative  character,  and 
thus  enabled  him  successfully  to  ask  counsel  of  God.* 

In  comparing  the  Hebrew  oracle  with  the  oracles  of  pagan- 
ism, my  remarks  will  embrace  the  period  of  their  respective 
Institution  ;  the  times,  occasions,  and  conditions  of  consulting 

*  See  on  this  subject  Lowm.  on  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  11 ;  Prideaux's  Connex. 
Vol.  1.  pp.  155-lGO;  Mich.  Comment.  Art.  52;  Jahn's  Archaeol.  Art.  369  j 
Smith's  Heb.  Peop.  p.  533 ;  and  Calmet's  Diet.  Art.  Urim  and  Thummim. 


604  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

them  ;  the  machinery  of  consultation ;  and  the  nature  of  the 
responses  uttered  by  each. 

Infidel  writers  have  represented  the  Hebrew  oracle  as  a 
mere  imitation  of  those  of  pagan  institution ;  a  graft  from 
one  sj'stem  of  imposture,  into  another  but  little  better. 
Morgan  says,  that  "  while  the  Jews  were  in  Egypt,  they  had 
been  dazzled  by  the  infallible  declarations  of  Jupiter  Am- 
nion." Sir  Isaac  Newton,  however,  places  the  birth  of  Ammon 
more  than  400  years  after  the  Exodus  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt. 
These  are  the  words  of  this  illustrious  chronologist :  "The 
year  before  Christ  1002,  Sesac  reigned  in  Egypt.  He  erected 
temples  and  oracles  to  his  father  in  Thebes,  Ammonia,  and 
Ethiopia  ;  and  thereby  caused  his  father  to  be  worshipped  as 
a  god  in  those  countries.  This  was  the  original  of  the  wor- 
ship of  Jupiter  Amnion,  and  the  first  mention  of  oracles  I 
meet  with  in  profane  history.  The  Greeks,  in  their  oracles, 
imitated  the  Egyptians  ;  for  the  oracle  of  Dodona,  which  was 
the  oldest  in  Greece,  was  set  up  by  an  Egyptian  woman  after 
the  example  of  the  oracle  at  Thebes."*  Thus  it  appears, 
according  to  this  high  chronological  authority,  that,  instead 
of  the  Jewish  oracle  being  an  imitation  of  the  pagan  oracles, 
the  reverse  was  the  fact.  The  latter  drew  their  original 
from  the  former. 

The  Hebrew  oracle  could  be  consulted  at  all  times,  when 
the  occasions  of  the  state  required ;  the  Grecian,  only  on 
particular  days  of  a  particular  month  in  the  year.  It  is 
obvious  to  remark,  what  an  advantage  this  gave  to  the  priests 
of  those  lying  divinities  to  anticipate  the  questions  to  be  pro- 
posed, and  to  frame  skilful  and  deceptive  reptlies. 

The  Hebrew  oracle  could  be  consulted  only  by  some  high 
public  functionary,  and  when  questions  of  moment,  relating  to 
the  government  of  the  republic,  demanded  resolution.  The 
Grecian  oracles  refused  not  their  utterance  to  any  persons, 

*  Empire  of  Egypt,  p.  207. 


LAWS    OjT   the   ancient   HEBREWS.  605 

nor  upon  any  occasion,  provided  only  that  tlie  fee  was  suffi- 
ciently ample  to  cause  them  to  break  silence. 

This  leads  me  to  remark  upon  another  distinction  between 
the  two  institutions.  No  money  was  ever  received  for  con- 
sulting the  Jewish  oracle.  The  offer  of  it  would  have  been 
an  insult  to  him,  whose  voice  was  heard  in  its  responses. 
The  Grecian  oracles  were  sources  of  vast  revenues  to  the  priests. 
The  wealth  of  the  Delphian  oracle  exceeded  that  of  the  most 
opulent  states  and  princes.  Its  treasury  blazed  with  uncounted 
jewels,  and  groaned  beneath  the  masses  of  gold  and  silver 
that  filled  its  capacious  vaults. 

Another  point  of  difference  appears  in  the  machinery  of 
consultation,  and  the  character  of  the  responses.  Nothing 
can  be  more  simple  than  the  method  of  consulting  the  divine 
oracle;  nothing  less  ambiguous  than  its  answers.  But  what 
endless  mystery,  and  mummery,  and  cumbrous  rites  of  divi- 
nation, accompanied  the  responses  of  the  heathen  oracles  1 
These  were  always  so  contrived  as  to  be  susceptible  of  a 
double  interpretation.  In  proof  of  this,  the  reader's  atten- 
tion is  directed  to  the  response  of  the  Delphian  oracle  to 
Croesus,  the  powerful  monarch  of  the  Lydian  empire,  respect- 
ing the  issue  of  his  war  with  Cyrus.  Its  purport  was,  that 
he  should  overturn  a  great  empire,  and  that  the  Persians 
would  not  conquer  him,  till  they  had  a  mule  for  their  prince. 
History  has  recorded  the  result.  The  wily  priests  had  well 
considered  their  answer.  They  knew  nothing  of  the  issue. 
How  could  they?  But  they  must  clutch  the  treasures  of 
Lydia's  richest  sovereign.  To  this  end,  they  must  flatter  his 
pride.  And  they  must  maintain  the  credit  of  their  oracle, 
whichever  way  fortune  might  decide  the  contest.  With 
demoniac  cunning  did  they  frame  the  response  to  answer  all 
these  ends.  When  the  unhappy  Lydian,  lured  to  his  ruin  by 
their  lying  flatteries,  dared  to  reproach  them  with  their  decep- 
tion, with  insulting  scorn  they  replied  : — "  Ungrateful  fool ! 
you  have  overturned  a  great  empire,  even  that  over  which 


606  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

you  reigned,  and  your  throne  and  sceptre  have  been  wrested 
from  you  by  the  mule  of  our  oracle,  even  Cyrus,  who,  his 
father  being  a  Persian  and  his  mother  a  Median,  fills  the 
measure  of  its  import."  Behold  the  system  !  Behold  the 
commentary !  Each  worthy  of  the  other,  and  both  of  that 
infernal  craft  and  policy,  in  which  they  had  their  origin. 
One  hardly  knows  against  whom  to  feel  the  greater  indig- 
nation ;  whether  against  the  contrivers  of  such  a  system  of 
delusion,  or  the  bold  blasphemer,  who  dares  to  liken  it  to 
that  oracle  of  eternal  truth,  whose  immaculate  responses 
were  fitly  symbolized  by  a  legend,  which  signifies,  "  Lights 
AND  Perfections." 

Infidels  have  indulged  in  a  superabundance  of  malignant 
and  silly  ridicule  over  this  divine  oracle  ;  but  with  their  usual 
want  of  inquiry  and  reflection.  I  admit,  that  it  is  an  ex- 
traordinary institution.  I  admit,  that  it  is  altogether  without 
a  parallel  in  the  history  of  the  world.  But  this  is  no  argu- 
ment against  either  the  fact  or  the  wisdom  of  it.  "No  other 
civil  society  has  ever  been  formed  for  precisely  the  same  ob- 
jects, nor  existed  under  exactly  the  same  circumstances.  No 
other  civil  polity  ever  proposed,  as  its  main  end,  the  over- 
throw of  idolatry,  the  preservation  of  true  religion  in  the 
world,  and  the  education  of  mankind  for  a  more  spiritual  and 
•universal  dispensation  of  grace.  Add  to  this,  that  the  human 
race  was  then,  as  it  were,  in  its  infancy  and  nonage.  It  had 
but  few  abstract  ideas.  It  was,  for  the  most  part,  confined 
in  its  mental  operations  to  sensible  objects.  In  such  a  state 
of  things,  philosophy  itself  would  teach  us  to  look  for  just 
such  an  institution  as  the  Hebrew  oracle.  And  when  we 
find  it  making  its  appearance  in  the  Jewish  church,  enlight- 
ened reason  is  prepared  to  exclaim  in  the  language  of  revela- 
tion, "  Oh  the  depths  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  God." 

The  oracle  was  the  institution  of  all  others,  adapted  to  the 
mental  condition,  habits,  and  needs  of  the  Hebrew  people. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  607 

It  operated  as  a  salutary  check  to  the  ignorance  and  rashness 
of  both  rulers  and  people.  By  powerfully  impressing  the 
imagination  through  the  senses,  it  supplied  the  place  of  a 
strong,  realizing  conception  of  an  infinite  and  omnipresent 
spirit,  which  was  wanting  in  that  minority  and  pupilage  of 
the  nation.  It  served  to  detach  their  afiections  and  their 
trust  from  the  pompous  and  alluring  idolatries  of  their 
heathen  neighbors.  This  sensible  manifestation  of  the  Deity, 
— the  cloud  of  glory  shooting  up  to  mid-heaven  in  a  column 
of  massy  splendor,  or  resting  in  luminous  folds  over  the 
mercy-seat  in  the  holy  of  holies, — is  so  far  from  being  incre- 
dible, that,  while  scripture  affirms  its  truth,  reason  and 
philosophy  declare  its  expediency.  The  divine  oracle  with 
its  attendant  visible  glories, — the  ark,  the  mercy-seat,  the 
cherubim,  the  luminous  cloud,  the  breastplate  of  judgment, 
with  its  mystical  nrim  and  thummim,  and  the  audible  re- 
sponses of  the  Deity, — formed  a  school,  designed,  with  ad- 
mirable wisdom  and  condescension,  for  tutoring  the  infant 
intellect  and  heart  of  the  world,  and  training  them  up  to  a 
full  spiritual  maturity  and  strength.  "  To  pour  contempt, 
therefore,  on  these  extraordinary  appearances,  as  absurd  and 
romantic  fables,  would  be  as  unphilosophical  and  as  ungrate- 
ful, as  it  would  be  for  a  child,  when  arrived  at  manhood,  to 
censure  and  despise  those  condescending  methods,  by  which 
parental  wisdom  and  love  had  moulded  and  carried  forward 
his  childhood  to  manly  vigor  and  understanding."*  Let  us 
not  be  guilty  of  the  folly,  the  injustice,  we  may  say,  of  mea- 
suring the  intellectual  and  religious  wants  of  a  comparatively 
rude  and  infant  state  of  society,  by  those  of  our  own  more 
cultivated,  more  enlightened,  more  spiritual,  more  manly, 
and  christian  age  of  the  world.  And  while  we  admire  the 
beauties  of  the  dawn,  and  adore  the  wisdom  and  benevolence 
of  those  early  pencillings  of  spiritual  light,  let  us  rejoice  and 

*  Tappan's  Jewish  Antiquities,  Lect.  6. 


B^O®  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

be  grateful,  that  the  full-orbed  sun  has  arisen  upon  us  in  all 
his  splendor. 

"  In  the  oracle,  then,"  to  conclude  this  chapter  in  the 
words  of  Lowman,*  "  we  see  a  considerable  part  of  the  He- 
brew constitution  to  direct  the  councils  of  the  united  tribes, 
the  political  wisdom  of  which  is  seldom  remarked  in  the 
civil  government  of  that  nation.  There  was  a  congregation 
of  all  Israel,  or  assembly  of  the  people,  that  all  things  might 
be  done  with  general  consent.  There  was  a  senate  of  wise 
and  able  persons,  to  prepare  things  by  previous  deliberation 
and  consultation,  that  things  might  not  be  concluded  rashly 
in  a  popular  assembly,  before  they  were  maturely  considered 
and  examined  by  men  of  wisdom  and  experience.  There 
was  a  judge  to  assemble  the  states-general  on  proper  occa- 
sions, to  preside  in  their  assemblies,  and  to  command  the 
armies  of  the  united  provinces,  and  to  see  the  national  reso- 
lutions duly  executed.  And  finally,  here  was  an  oracle, 
which  was  to  be  consulted  by  the  high  priest  on  great  occa- 
sions, that  no  rash  resolutions  of  the  people,  senate,  or  judge, 
might  be  brought  into  execution,  in  cases  of  moment  and 
difficulty ;  but  they  were  to  ask  counsel  of  God,  or  to  obtain 
the  royal  assent  of  Jehovah,  as  king  of  Israel,  by  his  oracle. 
This  was  a  wise  provision,  to  preserve  a  continual  sense  in 
the  Hebrew  nation  of  the  principal  design  of  their  constitu- 
tion, to  keep  them  from  idolatry  and  to  the  worship  of  the 
one  true  God,  as  their  immediate  protector;  and  that  their 
security  and  prosperity  depended  upon  adhering  to  his  coun- 
sels and  commands." 

*  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  11. 


LAWS   OF   THE  ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  609 


CHAPTER  YIII. 

The  Hebrew  Priesthood. 

I  USE  the  term  priesthood  htre  in  an  enlarged  sense.  I 
include,  under  that  designation,  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi,  as 
possessing  a  sacerdotal  or  sacred  character.  It  is  of  this 
tribe,  that  I  now  propose  to  treat,  in  its  constitution,  its  func- 
tions, and  its  revenues.  Xo  part  of  the  Mosaic  institution 
has  been,  either  more  grossly  misunderstood,  or  more  wick- 
edly misrepresented.  It  is  proper,  therefore,  to  examine  it, 
in  the  relations  just  indicated.* 

The  tribe  of  Levi  had  an  organization  quite  different  from 
that  of  the  other  tribes.  These  were  settled  in  distinct  pro- 
vinces, and  had  each  a  government  of  its  own.  This  had  no 
landed  property,  did  not  live  together,  and  was  without  an 
independent  government.  Its  members  were  dispersed 
through  all  the  territories  of  Israel ;  drew  their  livelihood 
from  the  other  tribes  ;  and  were  subject  to  the  government 
of  the  province,  in  which  they  lived. 

How  this  happened,  it  is  interesting  to  inquire.  On  the  de- 
parture of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt,  all  their  first-born  males 
were  sanctified  to  the  Lord,  and  destined  to  the  altar.    Bvtt 

*  On  the  subject  of  this  chapter,  see  Lowm.  Civ.  Gov.  Heb.  c.  6 ;  Cunaeus 
de  Repub.  Hebr.  1.  2.  c.  1;  Mich.  Comment.  Art.  52;  Jahn's  Heb;  Com.  b. 
2.  §  12;  Salv.  Inst,  de  Moise,  1.  2.  c.  1.  and  1.  3.  c.  3 ;  Fleury,  Manners  of 
the  Israelites,  Pt.  2.  c.  22,  and  Ft.  4.  c.  5  ;  Lewis's  Antiq.  Heb-.  Rep.  b.  2.; 
and  Harrington's  Commonwealth  of  Israel,  b.  2.  c.  2. 
39 


610  COMMENTA.RIES    ON   THE 

the  difficulty  of  obtaining  from  each  family  its  first-born  son, 
the  difficulty  of  detaching  them  from  their  private  interests, 
as  citizens  of  such  a  tribe  or  such  a  town,  rendered  this  mode 
impracticable.  Moses,  therefore,  without  in  the  least  changing 
the  original  principle,  substituted,  for  this  service,  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  in  place  of  all  the  first-born.  But  why  was  this  tribe 
chosen?  And,  of  all  its  members,  why  did  Aaron  and  his 
sons  obtain  the  priesthood  ?  Two  circumstances  dictated  the 
preference  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  the  smallness  of  its  numbers, 
and  the  zeal  which  it  had  displayed  in  punishing  the  Israelites 
for  their  idolatry  in  the  matter  of  the  golden  calf.  The  ta- 
lent, eloquence,  and  eminent  public  services  of  Aaron,  which 
had  already  won  the  admiration  and  gratitude  of  his  coun- 
trymen, pointed  him  out  as  the  person  most  worthy  of  being 
raised  to  the  second  dignity  in  the  state. 

It  is  remarkable,  and  deserves  attention,  as  showing  the 
democratic  character  of  this  government,  that  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  though  designated  by  Jehovah  to  the  service  of  the 
temple,  received  its  legal  institution  from  the  Hebrew  people, 
as  represented  in  the  states-general  of  Israel.  In  the  first 
instance,  Moses,  with  the  senate  and  the  congregation,  conse- 
crated the  high  priest  and  his  associates,  thus  evincing,  that 
it  belonged  to  the  general  diet  to  choose  the  chief  pontiff 
from  among  the  priests  most  distinguished  for  their  ability 
and  merit,  and  to  establish  him  in  his  charge.*  Afterwards, 
the  whole  assembly  of  the  children  of  Israel  was  convoked 
to  induct  the  Levitical  order  into  their  office.  The  people, 
by  their  representatives,  laid  their  hands  npon  the  Levites, 
and  the  high  priest  consecrated  them  in  the  name  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  as  an  offering  freely  made  by  them  to  Jehovah 
their  king.f 

From  the  above  detail  it  appears,  that  the  designation  and 
institution  of  the  high  priest  belonged,  not  to  the  council  of 
priests,  but  to  the  senate,  and  must  receive  the  confirmation 

*  Levi*,  viii.  2-5.  f  Numb.  viii.  5-22. 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  611 

of  the  people  through  their  deputies.  But  this  will  still 
more  clearly  appear  from  some  examples  in  the  Israelitish 
history.  Aaron  had  four  sons.  Two  of  them  died  without 
issue.  Of  the  other  two,  Eleazar  obtained  the  high-priest- 
hood.* But  this  dignity  was  not  necessarily  hereditary  in  his 
family,  for,  under  the  judges,  it  passed  into  the  family  of  his 
brother.  As  to  the  motive  for  this  change,  and  the  manner 
in  which  it  was  made,  the  bible  is  silent.  But  it  informs  us 
distinctly  of  the  circumstances,  which  restored  the  dignity 
to  the  family  of  Eleazar.  Abiathar,  having  taken  part  against 
Solomon,  was  deposed,  and  Zadoc  elevated  to  the  pontificate 
in  his  place.  By  whom  was  ttiis  done  ?  It  was  the  congre- 
gation of  Israel,  that  chose,  anointed,  and  established  Zadoc 
in  this  office.f  Josephus  cannot  be  accused  of  partiality  to 
democratic  ideas,  and  still  less  of  depreciating  the  rights  of 
the  priests  ;  yet  he  admits,  that  this  dignity  was,  and  of  right 
ought  to  be,  conferred  by  the  people.  When  the  nephew  of 
the  high  priest  Onias  publicly  reproaches  his  uncle  with  his 
conduct,  he  tells  him,  that  it  is  strange  that,  having  been 
elevated  by  the  people  to  the  honor  of  the  high-priesthood, 
he  should  have  so  little  concern  for  the  welfare  of  his  coun- 
try.:}: It  was  the  people,  who  gave  the  pontificate  to  Judas 
Maccabeus. §  It  was  the  people,  again,  who  conferred  the 
same  dignity  upon  his  brother  Simon. |  In  short,  the  great 
principle  of  the  ancient  Hebrews,  in  which  we  recognize  the 
germ  of  the  modern  idea  of  the  three  powers,  was,  that  there 
were  three  crowns  in  Israel,  viz.  the  crown  of  royalty,  the 
crown  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  crown  of  the  law.  The  first 
was  bestowed  upon  David  and  his  descendants ;  the  second 
was  given  to  Aarcn  and  his  sons;  but  the  third,  which 
was  superior  to  both  the  others,  was  the  inheritance  of  all 
Israel.  The  king,  the  priest,  the  judge,  all  the  magistracies, 
were  the  creatures  of  the  law  ;  and  the  law  was  enacted  by 

*  Numb.  XX.  26.  f  1  Chr.  xxix.  22.  +  Antiq.  1.  12.  3.  4 

i  Antiq.  1.  12.  c.  10.         H  1  Mace.  xiv.  35. 


612  COilMENT ARIES    ON   THE 

the  people.  Tlie  constitution,  in  its  parts,  was  pervaded  witli 
the  democratic  spirit. 

I  pass  now  to  the  inquiry  concerning  the  functions  of  the 
sacerdotal  trihe.  Morgan  and  other  skeptical  writers  have 
wished  to  discover  in  the  Levites  a  government  of  priests, 
intent  solely  on  the  enjoyment  of  sovereign  power,  and  the 
exorbitant  enrichment  of  their  own  order.  But  this  idea  is 
without  foundation,  and  against  truth,  being  wholly  repug- 
nant to  the  genius  and  scope  of  the  institution. 

The  Levites  were  not  a  mere  spirituality.  Certainly  they 
were  the  ministers  of  religion,  and  charged  with  all  the  func- 
tions appertaining  to  the  public  worship  of  Jehovah.  But  so 
close  was  the  relation  between  the  law  and  the  religion  of  the 
Hebrews,  that  all  ecclesiastical  persons  were  at  the  same  time 
political  persons.  The  entire  tribe  of  Levi  was  set  apart  to 
God,  the  king  of  this  commonwealth.  Politically  speaking, 
they  were  Jehovah's  ministers  of  state.  Hence  this  tribe,  as 
constituted  by  Moses,  was  not  only  a  priesthood,  appointed  to 
the  service  of  the  altar,  but  also  a  true  temporal  magistracy, 
having  important  and  vital  civil  relations.  The  burden  of 
government  was,  in  great  measure,  laid  upon  its  shoulders. 
Besides  performing  the  ceremonies  of  public  worship,  it  was 
destined  to  preserve  in  its  integrity,  and  to  interpret  in  the 
seat  of  justice,  the  text  of  the  fundamental  laws;  to  teach 
these  laws  to  all  Israel ;  to  inspire  the  people  with  a  love  for 
them ;  to  oppose  all  its  own  authority  and  influence  against 
any  and  every  attempt  to  overthrow  them  ;  and  to  bind  firmly 
together  all  the  parts  of  the  body  politic. 

Let  the  reader  transport  himself,  in  imagination,  to  the  age 
when  Moses  lived ;  let  him  look  at  the  circumstances,  in 
which  he  found  himself;  let  him  consider  the  diflaculties  to 
be  overcome  by  him  ; — and  this  institution  will  readily  become 
its  own  interpreter. 

In  the  midst  of  men  ignorant,  debased  by  slavery,  and 
prone  to  superstition ;  in  the  midst  of  twelve  distinct  repub- 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  613 

Jics,  governed  by  their  own  assemblies,  senates,  and  magis- 
trates, Moses  felt  deeply  the  necessity  of  some  means,  both  of 
elevating  the  people  and  of  uniting  in  close  and  strong  bonds 
all  these  different  parts  of  the  body  politic, — some  means, 
which  would  continually  recal  their  regards  to  the  same  end, 
and  prevent  the  evils,  to  which  federative  republics  are  so  liar 
ble,  where  the  individual  interests  of  the  several  members 
are  apt  to  overpower  and  bear  down  the  general  interest  and 
welfare.  To  obtain  this  agency,  Moses  gave  to  the  tribe  of 
Levi  the  particular  organization,  under  which  we  find  it.  He 
distributed  it  throughout  all  the  other  twelve  tribes,  and  as- 
signed to  it  certain  specific  duties.  The  high  priest,  as  pres- 
ident of  the  tribe  and  supreme  interpreter  of  the  text  of  the 
law,  had  his  permanent  residence  at  the  capital  of  the  nation. 
Thus  the  centre  of  the  particular  system  of  conservatism  and 
union  corresponded  with  the  centre  of  the  republic  itself. 
From  this  centre,  the  system  spread  itself  out  to  the  utmost 
extremities  of  the  nation.  Every  where  its  influence  was 
exerted  to  inspire  a  love  of  law  and  order;  to  promote  peace; 
to  cement  the  bonds  of  social  and  political  union ;  to  insure 
a  constantly  progressive  civilization  ;  in  a  word,  to  place  con- 
tinually before  the  eyes  of  all  their  countrymen  that  law,  to 
which  their  own  individual  interest  and  happiness  were  iudis- 
solubly  united. 

Let  us  look  at  another  difficulty,  which  met  the  Jewish 
lawgiver  in  the  framing  of  his  constitution,  and  particularly 
in  the  organization  of  this  magistracy.  The  individuals  to 
compose  it  must  be  taken  from  among  men,  who,  instead  of 
watching  over  the  preservation  of  the  text  of  the  law,  would 
quite  as  likely  hasten  to  change  it  according  to  their  owu 
caprices,  and,  instead  of  teaching  it  to  others,  would  them- 
selves, perhaps,  tear  and  lacerate  its  provisions,  beyond  the 
possibility  of  recovery.  To  parry  this  danger,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  establish  the  institution  upon  natural  guaranties, 
Moses  had  recourse  to  the  power  of  private   interest.     By 


614  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

making  the  functions  of  the  Levites  hereditary,  he  was  en- 
abled to  unite  their  essential  interests  to  those  of  the  other 
tribes,  by  a  combination,  which  would,  as  it  were,  compel 
them  to  fulfil  the  objects  of  their  charge.  He  excluded  them 
from  all  inheritance  in  the  soil  of  Israel,  and  made  them 
wholly  dependent,  in  their  private  interests,  upon  the  rest  of 
the  people.  Thus  the  Levite  would  be  led  to  attach  himself 
to  the  law,  on  which  his  own  livelihood  depended.  He  would 
seek  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  state,  because  they  were 
the  necessary  conditions  of  his  own.  Self-interest  would 
prompt  him  to  respect  the  law,  in  order  that  others  might 
respect  it.  Self  interest  would  lead  him  to  publish  it,  that 
the  precepts  which  consecrated  his  own  right,  might  not  be 
forgotten.  Self-interest,  in  fine,  would  cause  him  to  watch 
over  its  entire  execution, — thus  making  of  this  tribe,  a  true 
and  powerful  instrument  of  conservatism. 

But  while  the  tribe  of  Levi,  as  it  came  from  the  hand  of 
Moses,  constituted  a  true  civil  magistracy,  it  was  far  from 
being,  as  Morgan  would  have  us  believe,  the  tyrant  of  the 
state.  Iso ;  the  state  had  but  one  master  under  the  constitu- 
tion of  Moses,  and  that  was  the  law.  To  this  the  sons  of 
Levi  were  as  much  bound  to  submit,  as  the  other  citizens. 
"  Lex  major  Siicerdotio," — the  law  is  greater  than  the  priest- 
hood,— was  the  principle  of  the  Hebrew  polity.  How  vast, 
how  radical,  herein,  the  difierence  between  the  priesthood  of 
Egypt  and  the  priesthood  of  Israel !  The  former  made  thv^ 
laws  themselves,  changed  them  at  will,  and  concealed  the 
books  in  which  they  were  written  from  all  profane  eyes. 
The  latter  were  simply  charged  with  preserving  the  laws 
intact,  with  keeping  them  constantly  ex])osed  to  the  eyes  of 
the  people,  and  with  teaching  them  all  to  all  exactly. 

If  Moses,  as  is  alleged,  had  really  intended  to  form  a 
government  of  priests,  clothed  with  absolute  powers,  would 
he,  being  of  a  sane  mind,  have  pursued  the  course  that  he 
did  ?     Would  he  liave  begun,  by  stripping  the  priests  of  the 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  615 

power  conferred  bj  territorial  estates  ?  Would  lie  have  con- 
tinued, bv  depriving  them  of  the  authority  derived  from  the 
command  of  the  military  forces  of  the  nation?  Would  he 
have  ended,  by  withholding  from  them  the  influence,  which 
illusion  always  enables  the  knowing  to  wield  over  the  igno- 
rant ?  Moses  was  no  stranger  to  these  things.  He  had  seen 
them  all,  and  he  had  seentheir  almost  omnipotence,  in  Egypt. 
These  are  capital  points  in  the  argument ;  and  it  is  idle  to 
attempt  either  to  deny  or  evade  their  force.  Moses  took 
away  from  his  priesthood  the  power  derived  from  property  ; 
the  power  derived  from  military  command ;  the  power  de- 
rived from  illusions.  What,  then,  did  he  leave  it?  Nothing 
but  the  power  of  the  law ;  a  law,  which  they  did  not  make, 
which  they  could  not  change,  and  which  they  were  them- 
selves bound  to  obey.  Here,  surely,  is  no  basis  of  tyranny. 
Here  is  no  foothold  for  despotism.  Here  is  no  germ  or  ali- 
ment of  ecclesiastical  oppression.  The  Hebrew  priests  could 
become  despots  and  tyrants,  only  by  overthrowing  the  con- 
stitution, which  gave  them  being,  and  on  which  their  whole 
livelihood  depended. 

One  of  the  most  important  of  the  civil  functions  of  the 
sacerdotal  order,  under  the  Hebrew  constitution,  was  that  of 
acting  as  judges.  This  required  for  its  performance  a  large 
proportion  of  its  members.  No  less  than  six  thousand  cf 
them,  in  the  time  of  David,  acted  as  judges  and  genealogists. 
"  The  declaration  of  Moses  on  this  point,"  says  Michaelis, 
"  is  perfectly  clear,  Deut.  21  :  5.  '  On  the  mouth  of  the 
priest  shall  every  controversy  and  every  stroke  depend.'  It 
was,  in  an  especial  manner,  the  business  of  the  priests,  in  all 
disputes  of  a  more  serious  nature,  to  pronounce  the  final  de- 
cision, and  lay  down  the  law,  much  in  the  same  manner  as  it 
is  of  our  judicial  faculties  and  tribunals  of  appeal."  The 
words  of  Moses  in  his  valedictory  ode  and  benediction  to 
Israel,  (Deut.  33  :  9,  10.) — "  He  who  said  unto  his  father  and 
to  his  mother,  I  have  not  seen  him,  neither  did  he  acknowl- 


616  COMMENTARIES    ON    THE 

edge  his  brethren,  nor  knew  his  own  children,  and  shall 
teach  Jacob  thy  judgments,  and  Israel  thy  law," — must  un- 
doubtedly be  meant  of  teaching  these  laws  in  the  seat  of 
judgment;  inasmuch  as  the  expressions  employed  refer  to 
that  impartiality,  which  is  so  essential  an  attribute  of  a  good 
judge. 

The  Levites  were  also  the  literati  of  all  the  faculties. 
They  were  by  birth  obliged  to  devote  themselves  to  the 
sciences.  They  formed  a  sort  of  literary  aristocracy,  whose 
influence  was  intended  to  counteract  the  hasty  measures, 
likely  to  result  from  the  strongly  democratic  character  of  the 
government.  They  acted  as  physicians,  as  teachers,  as 
transcribers  of  books,  as  writers  of  contracts  and  other  law 
papers,  as  chroniclers  and  historians,  as  astronomers,  and  as 
mathematicians  employed  in  the  service  of  the  state. 

The  tribe  of  Levi,  then,  comprehended  the  learned  of  all 
names;  the  sages  and  professors  of  law  and  jurisprudence; 
of  medicine  and  physiology,  of  the  physical  and  mathemati- 
cal sciences ;  in  short,  of  all  the  so  called  liberal  arts  and 
sciences,  the  possession  and  application  of  which  constitute 
the  civilization  of  a  country.  It  was  to  be  the  chief  instru- 
ment of  a  continuing  and  progressive  mental,  moral,  and 
religious  culture  of  the  people.  Its  business  was  to  produce, 
preserve,  and  perfect  all  the  necessary  sources  and  conditions 
of  national  civilization  ;  to  form  and  train  up  the  people  of 
the  country  to  be  obedient,  free,  useful  citizens  and  patriots, 
living  to  the  benefit  of  the  state,  and  prepared  to  die  for  its 
defence. 

Such,  in  a  political  point  of  view,  were  the  noble  functions, 
such  the  strongly  conservative  character  of  the  sacerdotal 
order,  under  the  Mosaic  constitution.  Yet  the  Hebrew 
priesthood  was  far  from  having  obtained  a  range  of  powers, 
equal  in  extent  and  magnitude  to  that  embodied  in  the  col- 
lege of  Eoman  pontiffs.  Within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  latter 
body   were   included,   besides   what    belonged  to   religious 


LAWS   OF    THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS,  617 

affairs,  adoptions,  marriages,  funerals,  wills,  oaths,  consecra- 
tions, the  care  of  the  public  annals,  the  arrangement  of  the 
calendar,  and,  in  concurrence  with  the  jurisconsults,  the  de- 
termination of  the  rules  and  forms  of  judicial  procedure* 

The  revenues  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  next  claim  our  attention.f 
These  were  undoubtedly  liberal ;  but  they  have  been  greatly 
overrated  and  overstated  by  men,  who  would  neither  weigh 
the  advantages  they  gave  up  in  return,  nor  take  the  trouble 
to  inform  themselves  of  the  real  nature,  extent,  and  value  of 
their  services  to  the  state,  Morgan,  in  particular,  has  in- 
dulged in  the  wildest  and  most  extravagant  calculations,  and, 
as  Michaelis  says,  has  called  falsehood  to  his  aid,  with  a  view 
to  exaggerate  the  amount  of  the  already  too  great  income  of 
his  supposed  spirituality.  What,  then,  was  the  provision, 
which  the  law  made  for  the  priests  and  Levites,  as  near  as  we 
can  ascertain  it  from  the  history  ?  The  tribe  of  Levi,  at  the 
time  of  the  enumeration  in  the  wilderness,  contained  twenty- 
two  thousand  males,  or,  probably  about  twelve  thousand 
arrived  at  adult  age.  The  other  tribes  numbered  six  hun- 
dred thousand,  capable  of  bearing  arms.  Consequently,  the 
Levites  constituted  about  a  fiftieth  part  of  the  whole  nation. 
Besides  cities  to  dwell  in,  this  tribe  was  to  receive  a  tenth  of 
all  the  produce  of  the  land,  both  of  fruit  and  cattle.  From 
this  it  would  appear,  that  the  income  of  each  individual 
Levite  was  equal  to  the  average  income  of  five  other  Israel- 
ites. But  if  we  should  conclude  from  hence,  that  this  was 
the  actual  proportion,  we  should  deceive  ourselves. 

A  variety  of  circumstances  tended  to  diminish  the  tithe 
accorded  to  the  Levites.     1.  They  were  themselves  obliged  to 

*  Terrasson,  Hist,  de  la  Jurispr.  Rom.  Berryat-Saint-Prix,  Hist,  du 
Droit  Rom.  cited  by  Salv.  1.  2,  c.  1. 

f  I  make  a  general  reference  here  to  the  passages,  which  relate  to  thia 
subject,  viz.  Numb,  xviii. ;  Lev.  ii.  vii.  and  xxvii.  30-33  ;  Exod.  xxiii.  19: 
Deut.  xxvi.  2-10;  Exod.  xiii.  13,  and  xxx.  11  seqq.  Lev.  xxiii.  19,  20, 
Deut.  xviii.  4 :   Exod.  iv.  20. 


618  COMMENTAKIES   ON    THE 

hand  over  a  tenth  of  it  to  the  priests.  2.  The  whole  jand  of 
Israel  was  not  tithable;  no  woodlands,  no  timber,  paid  any 
tithe  at  all.  3.  Even  the  cattle,  which  constituted  an  import- 
ant, if  not  indeed  the  most  important  part  of  the  Israelitish 
husbandry,  paid  only  a  tithe  of  the  young.  When  the  tenth 
lamb,  calf,  kid,  &c.  were  paid  as  tithe,  the  remainder  of  the 
flock  and  the  herd  paid  nothing  more,  in  wool,  milk,  butter, 
or  flesh.  Hence  it  is  plain,  that  the  whole  country  of  the 
Hebrews  by  no  means  paid  a  tenth  of  its  produce  to  the  Le- 
vites.  The  greater  part  of  the  soil,  indeed,  as  all  the  wood- 
lands and  pasture  grounds,  either  paid  nothing  at  all,  or  so 
slight  a  percentage,  as  to  be  really  of  little  account.  4.  The 
rendition  of  the  tithes  was  left  entirely  to  the  conscience  and 
the  loyalty  of  each  individual  Israelite.  No  compulsory  pro- 
cess could  be  instituted  to  compel  a  payment  of  them ;  neither 
did  the  priests  or  the  magistrates  have  any  superintendence 
or  oversight  of  the  matter.  It  will  readily  be  imagined,  that 
the  law  must  have  been  often  but  partially  complied  with, 
and  sometimes  wholly  eluded.  That  this  was  actually  the 
case,  appears  from  a  command  issued  by  king  Hezekiah,* 
and  from  the  censures  addressed  by  the  prophets  to  the  He- 
brew people.f  5.  If  one  or  more  of  the  tribes  abandoned 
themselves  to  idolatry,  the  Levites  lost  the  revenues  accruing 
to  them  from  such  tribes.  This  undoubtedly  often  happened. 
The  condition  of  the  Levites  could  not  have  been  one  of  much 
prosperity  or  abundance,  at  the  time  of  the  idolatry  of  Mioah, 
when  one  of  them,  belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Judah,  was 
obliged  to  go  about  the  country,  seeking  for  some  employment, 
and  was  glad  to  find  it,  even  in  the  service  of  an  idolatrous 
Israelite,  on  condition  of  receiving  his  food,  one  suit  of 
clothes,  and  ten  shekels  of  silver,  (about  five  dollars)  by  the 
year.  A  memorable  example  of  the  loss  of  revenue  to  the 
sacerdotal  tribe  from  religious  apostacy,  we  have  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  reign  of  Jeroboam,  when  the  Levites  driven  out 

*  2  Chr.  xssl  4.  f  Jer.  viii.  10  :  Mai.  iii.  8. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  619 

trom  their  habitations  to  make  room  for  idolatrous  priests, 
took  refuge  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem.*  6.  Another  consider- 
able subtraction  must  be  made  from  the  income  of  the  Le- 
vites,  if  an  opinion  of  Joseph  Scaliger  and  Salvadorf  is  well 
founded,  1  am  not,  indeed,  convinced,  that  their  idea  is  cor- 
rect ;  neither  am  I  convinced,  that  it  is  erroneous.  I  shall, 
therefore,  state  the  opinion,  v>?hich  they  have  advanced,  and 
leave  the  reader  to  examine  and  judge  for  himself  It  is  well 
known,  that,  besides  the  tithe  for  the  support  of  the  Levites, 
the  Israelites  were  required  to  pay  a  second  tithe,  which, 
however,  was  not  properly  of  the  nature  of  a  tax,  since  it  was 
to  be  consumed  by  the  people  themselves,  at  the  offering- 
feasts  and  other  entertainments,  in  the  place  which  the  Lord 
should  choose,  to  put  his  name  there.  To  these,  besides  other 
friends,  they  were  admonished  to  invite  Levites,  widows, 
orphans,  strangers,  poor  people,  and  their  own  servants,  thus 
giving  them  an  occasional  season  of  festivity.  There  is  also, 
apparently,  mention  made  of  a  third  tithe  for  every  third 
year,  to  be  expended  in  similar  festive  entertainments  at 
home.:}:  Three  opinions  have  obtained  respecting  this  last 
mentioned  tithe.  One  is,  that  it  was  really  an  additional  tithe, 
distinct  from  the  other  two.  For  this  notion,  however,  there 
does  not  appear  to  be  any  sufficient  foundation.  The  second 
opinion,  which,  as  it  is  the  more  common,  seems,  I  confess,  to 
be  the  more  probable,  is,  that  what  seem  to  be  two  tithes, 
were  in  reality  one  and  the  same,  and  the  law  in  Deut.  xiv. 
28,  29,  is  merely  a  direction,  requiring  that  so  much  of  the 
second  tithe  as  should  not  have  been  consumed  in  offering- 
feasts  at  the  place  of  the  altar,  should,  during  the  third  year, 
be  expended  in  similar  entertainments  at  home.  The  third 
opinion  is  that  of  Scaliger  and  Salvador,  referred  to  above. 

*  2  Chr.  xi.  13,  14. 

f  De  Decimis,  in  the  Coll.  of  Sacr.  Crit.  p.  211,  Hist,  des  Insts.  de  Moise, 
L  3.  C.  3. 

X  Deut.  xiv.  28,  29 :  xxvi.  12. 


620  COMMENTAKIES   ON   THE 

It  is,  that  every  third  year  the  tithe  of  the  Levites  did  not 
belong  to  them  exclusively,  but  was  to  be  shared  by  them 
with  three  other  classes  of  persons,  viz.  widows,  orphans, 
and  strangers.  Upon  the  M'hole,  it  is  manifest,  that  the  in- 
come of  a  Levite  must  have  fallen  very  far  below  that  of  five 
common  Israelites. 

But  it  may  be  suggested,  that  very  important  elements 
have  been  omitted  in  making  the  above  estimate.  I  reply, 
that  so  far  as  the  Levites  proper  are  concerned,  nothing  has 
been  excluded.  The  priests  enjoyed  other  revenues,  to 
which  I  am  now  going  to  turn  my  attention.  In  the  first 
place,  they  had  a  tenth  of  the  tithe  of  the  Levites.  Then 
there  were  the  first  fruits  of  the  earth  ;  the  firstlings  of  cattle; 
the  redemption  money  for  tlie  first-born  of  men  ;  portions  of 
every  sacrifice,  of  which  the  blood  came  not  into  the  holy  of 
holies ;  all  things  devoted ;  all  matters  of  vow  ;  the  skins  of 
the  burnt  ofierings ;  and  some  other  minor  sources  of  in- 
come.* I  do  not  mention  the  half-shekel  poll  tax,  ordered  at 
the  numbering  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  because  I 
am  convinced  that  that  was  paid  but  once  prior  to  the  capti- 
vity, and  that  the  Jews  under  the  se'^ond  temple,  in  making 
it  an  annual  tribute,  went  beyond  the  requisition  of  the  law 
of  Moses. 

The  items  of  income,  enumerated  above,  undoubtedly 
formed  a  very  considerable  sum  total,  which  came  into  the 
hands  of  the  priests.  The  question  is,  did  it  all  belong  to 
them  as  their  private  property,  which  they  were  at  liberty  to 
expend  in  whatever  way  they  pleased  ?  The  thing  is  impos- 
sible ;  and  those  who  think  so,  err  egregiously.  They  con- 
found two  things,  which  are  distinct  in  themselves  and  ought 
to  be  carefully  distinguished,  the  minister  and  the  ministry ; 
and  they  imagine  analogies  between  the  Hebrews  and  other 
nations,  which  have  no  existence,  except  in  their  own  fancy. 
The  tabernacle  first,  and  the  temple  afterwards,  were  not, 

*  Numb,  xxviii.  5-32,  and  Leviticus  passim. 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  621 

like  ojr  churches,  wholly  religious  in  their  de?ign  and  use.  On 
the  contrary,  they  had  a  character  and  a  purpose  eminently 
political.  Public  worship  was  certainly  performed  there. 
But  there  also  the  states- general  held  their  sessions;  and 
there  the  national  treasure  w^as  kept.  The  Israelite,  who 
consecrated  any  thing  to  Jehovah,  must  not  be  supposed  to 
have  devoted  it  to  the  priest  in  person,  but  simply  to  have 
made  use  of  his  ministry  to  convey  it  into  the  sacred  trea- 
sury, which  was  no  other  than  the  national  treasury.  Not  to 
the  priests  themselves,  therefore,  but  to  Jehovah,  belonged 
whatever  came  into  their  hands.  A  liberal  sum  was,  doubt- 
less, allowed  for  the  support  of  their  families  ;  but,  after  this 
had  been  taken  out,  the  rest  became  a  part  of  the  public 
treasure. 

This  is  what  I  had  to  say  on  the  constitution,  the  functions, 
and  the  revenues  of  the  sacerdotal  tribe  among  the  Hebrews. 
Three  considerations  the  Levites  rendered  to  the  rest  of  the 
Israelites  for  whatever  they  received  from  them.  1.  The 
tribe  of  Levi  gave  up  to  the  other  tribes  their  whole  share  of 
the  promised  land,  except  so  much  as  was  sufficient  to  afford 
them  a  place  of  habitation.  2.  They  parted  with  the  right 
of  an  independent  government,  such  as  the  other  tribes  en- 
joyed, and  completely  sunk  their  political  existence.  3. 
They  gave  up  themselves  to  the  national  service,  as  ministers 
of  religion,  ministers  of  state,  magistrates,  teachers  of  the 
people,  and  literati  of  all  the  faculties,  as  explained  in  a 
former  part  of  this  chapter ;  services  the  most  laborious, 
responsible,  and  useful  to  the  commonwealth.  For  all  this, 
they  received  a  simple  annuity,  liberal  it  m.ay  be,  but  de- 
pending solely  upon  the  national  faith  for  its  payment,  while 
they  divested  themselves  of  all  power  of  re-entry  in  case  of 
non-payment.  Let  the  benefits  surrendered  and  the  services 
performed  be  weighed  in  just  balances,  and  the  rent-roll  of 
the  tribe  of  Levi  will  appear  rather  below  than  above  the 
demands  of  reason  and  justice. 


COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Hebrew  Prophets. 

The  right  understanding  of  the  prophetical  office  among 
the  Hebrews  will  throw  much  light  on  the  Mosaic  constitu- 
tion, and  strikingly  evince  the  popular  character  of  the  Isra- 
elitish  government.  On  this  point,  far  be  it  from  me  to  dis- 
turb the  faith,  which  we  have  inherited  from  our  fathers,  or 
to  unsettle,  in  any  mind,  the  received  opinion  concerning  the 
true  divine  inspiration  of  the  Hebrew  prophets.  I  receive, 
with  implicit  and  unquestioning  faith,  the  testimony  of  Paul, 
that  "  all  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,"*  and 
the  testimony  of  Peter  that  "  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they 
■were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."f  Nevertheless,  to  foretell 
future  events,  and  to  impart  religious  truth  and  spiritual  les- 
sons, were  not  the  whole  duty  and  office  of  a  prophet,  under 
the  constitution  of  Moses. 

Doubtless,  the  most  important  functions  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets  were,  in  the  strict  sense,  religious  in  their  character. 
The  office  of  the  prophets  was  much  more  like  that  of  our 
modern  clergymen,  than  was  the  office  of  the  priests,  who 
had,  in  fact,  but  few  points  of  resemblance  to  the  ministry 
instituted  by  Christ.:}:    The  prophets  were  the  preachers  of 

*  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  t  2  Pet.  i.  21. 

X  A  single  fact  is  decisive  of  this,  viz.  their  living  in  cities  by  thom- 
eelves.  Hovr  could  christian  pastors  discharge  their  appropriate  functions, 
how  could  they  fulfil  the  command  to  watch  for  souls,  if  they  dwelt  in 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  623 

the  ancient  church.  According  to  Augustine,*  they  were  the 
philosophers,  divines,  instructors,  and  guides  of  the  Hebrews 
in  piety  and  virtue.  These  holy  men  were  the  bulwarks  of 
religion  against  the  impiety  of  princes,  the  wickedness  of  in- 
dividuals, and  every  kind  of  immorality. f  But  by  far  the 
most  important  part  of  their  comm.ission  was  to  foretell  the 
coming  and  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  with  their  attendant 
circumstances,  and,  by  slow  degrees,  yet  with  constantly  in- 
creasing clearness,  to  acquaint  their  countrymen  with  the 
approaching  change  of  their  economy,  and  with  the  nature  of 
the  new,  more  spiritual,  and  universal  dispensation,  which 
was  to  succeed  it.:{: 

Still,  as  hinted  above,  the  duties  of  the  prophets  were  not 
wholly  religious.  Their  relation  to  the  civil  state  was  not,  in- 
deed, fixed  by  any  constitutional  j)rovision,  or  legal  enactment. 
They  did  not  form  a  component  part  of  the  political  8ystem.§ 
They  were  not  a  branch  of  the  machinery  of  government. 
Yet  their  authority  and  influence  in  affairs  of  state  was  by 
no  means  inconsiderable.  They  were,  so  to  speak,  the  privi- 
leged state-moralists,  guardians,  and  popular  orators  of  the 
republic.  Coleridgel  speaks  of  them  as  uniting  the  functions 
and  threefold  character  of  the  Roman  censors,  the  tribunes 
of  the  people,  and  the  sacred  college  of  augurs.  The  histo- 
rian SchlosserT  says  :  "  We  hear,  in  the  prophets,  the  voice 
of  true  patriots,  who,  standing  upon  a  provision  of  the  law 
of  Moses,  spake  the  truth  to  the  people,  to  the  priests,  and  to 
the  kings."  Home**  speaks  of  them  as  possessing  great  au- 
thority in  the  Israelitish  state,  and  as  highly  esteemed  by 
the   pious   sovereigns,  who  undertook  no   important  affairs 

isolated  towns,  twenty,  thirty,  or  fifty  miles  apart,  instead  of  living  as  now 
among  their  respective  flocks  ? 

*  De  Civitat,  Dei,  1.  18.  c.  21. 

f  Home's  Int.  Pt.  5.  c.  4.  |  Warburton's  Div.  Leg.  1.  3.  Appendix, 

2  J.  A.  Alexander's  Earlier  Prophecies  of  Is.  Intr.  p.  16. 

[1  Manual  for  Statesmen.         ^  Cited  by  Salv.  L  2.  c  3.         **  ?U  5.  c.  4. 


624  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

without  consnltiiig  them.  Alexander*  represents  tlieir  influ- 
ence in  the  government  as  very  powerful,  not  indeed  by  offi- 
cial, formal  action,  but  as  special  divine  messengers,  whose 
authority  could  not  be  disputed  or  resisted  by  any  magistrate, 
without  abjuring  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  theocra- 
cy. Miltonf  compares  them  to  the  orators  of  the  Greek 
democracies.  The  lines  which  this  sage  and  learned  poet 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  our  Savior,  both  from  their  truth  and 
appositeness,  deserve  to  be  cited  here. 

"  Their  orators,  thou  then  extoll'st,  as  those 
The  top  of  eloquence  ; — statists,  indeed, 
And  lovers  of  their  country,  as  may  seem ; 
But  herein  to  our  prophets  far  beneath. 
As  men  divinely  taught,  and  better  teaching 
The  solid  rules  of  civil  goveniment, 
In  their  majestic,  unaffected  style. 
Than  all  the  oratory  of  Greece  and  Rome. 
In  them  is  plainest  taught  and  eaieiest  learnt, 
What  makes  a  nation  happy,  and  keeps  it  so, 
What  ruins  kingdoms  and  lays  cities  fiat." 

Nobly  said,  and  truthfully  too  !  The  prophetical  writings 
abound  with  the  finest  lessons  of  political  wisdom.  I.  know 
of  no  compositions  more  worthy  of  the  profound  study  of 
statesmen  and  legislators,  than  the  writings  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets.  In  seven  verses  of  his  forty-seventh  chapter,  be- 
ginning at  the  seventh  verse,  the  prophet  Isaiah,  as  Coleridge 
has  observed,  revealed  the  true  philosophy  of  the  French  re- 
volution of  1789,  more  than  two  thousand  years  before  it 
became  a  sad,  irrevocable  truth  of  history.  A  collection  of 
political  maxims,  forming  an  excellent  manual  for  statesmen, 
might  be  culled  from  the  books  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  ;  a 
collection,  which  would  surprise  even  diligent  students  of  the 
scriptures  by  the  number,  the  variety,  the  purity,  and  the 
deep  and  comprehensive  wisdom  of  its  counsels. 

*  Earl.  Proph.  Is.  Int.  p.  12.  f  Paradise  Regained. 


LAWS    OF   THE   ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  625 

But  it  is  time  to  look  at  the  institution  of  the  prophetical 
office,  as  it  is  related  in  the  Hebrew  history.  The  record  is 
contained  in  Deut.  18 :  9-22.  I  cite  the  passage  in  a  some- 
what abbreviated  form,  retaining,  however,  all  the  material 
parts  of  it.  "  When  thou  comest  into  the  land  which  Jeho- 
vah, thy  God,  giveth  thee,  thou  shalt  not  learn  to  do  after  the 
abominations  of  those  nations.  There  shall  not  be  found 
among  you  any  *  *  *  *  that  useth  divination,  or  an  obser- 
ver of  times,  or  an  enchanter,  or  a  witch,  or  a  charmer,  or  a 
consulter  with  familiar  spirits,  or  a  wizard,  or  a  necromancer. 
*  *  *  *  Jehovah,  thy  God,  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  pro- 
phet from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  bretiiren,  like  unto  me  ; 
unto  him  ye  shall  hearken.  *  *  *  *  But  the  prophet, 
which  shall  presume  to  speak  a  word  in  my  name,  which  I 
have  not  commanded  him  to  speak,  or  that  shall  speak  in  the 
name  of  other  gods,  even  that  prophet  shall  die.  *  *  * 
When  a  prophet  speaketh  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  if  the 
thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass,  that  is  the  thing  which 
Jehovah  hath  not  spoken,  but  the  prophet  hath  spoken  it 
presumptuously  :  thou  shalt  not  be  afraid  of  him." 

On  this  passage  I  offer  the  following  observations. 

1.  At  the  time  when  this  law  was  given,  it  was  the  custom 
of  mankind  to  pry  into  future  events.  No  propensity  was 
stronger  or  more  general  than  this  ;  and  religion  was  univer- 
sally regarded  as  the  means  of  gratifying  this  curiosity. 
Indeed,  it  was  looked  upon  as  a  chief  service,  which  religion 
owed  to  her  votaries,  to  give  them  information  concerning 
the  future.  The  nations,  by  whom  the  Hebrews  were  sur- 
rounded, had  their  various  ways  of  peering  into  futurity, 
some  of  which  are  enumerated  in  this  law.  If  no  means  had 
been  provided,  whereby  the  Israelites  could  foreknow  things 
to  come,  it  would  have  been  very  difficult,  considering  the 
prying  curiosity  of  those  early  ages,  to  keep  them  from  des- 
pising their  own  religion,  and  resorting  to  the  divinations  g' 
40 


f)26  COMMENTARIES    ON   THE 

their  idolatrous  neighbors.  All  this  is  noticed  bj  Origen,* 
as  a  ground  of  necessity  for  the  establishment  of  the  prophe- 
tical office  in  the  Hebrew  commonwealth.  To  keep  the 
Israelites  from  being  carried  away  by  ^-he  torrent  of  super- 
stition, which  overflowed  and  corrupted  the  nations,  true 
religion  was  provided  with  an  institution,  which  should  really 
furnish  that  knowledge,  which  false  religion  pretended  to 
give.  A  constant  succession  of  true  prophets  would  be  a 
powerful  means  of  weaning  God's  people  from  superstitious 
practices,  and  of  keeping  them  from  consulting  diviners  to 
discover  what  should  befal  them.  And  this  is  precisely 
what  God  promises  in  the  passage  under  consideration. 

2.  This  interpretation,  which  is  the  obvious  and  natural 
one,  confutes  that  which  restricts  the  words  to  a  prophecy 
respecting  the  Messiah.  Some  interpreters  do  so  restrict 
their  import,  because  they  are  expressly  applied  to  our  Savior 
by  Peter.f  Certainly  the  passage  has  reference  to  Christ, 
since  the  apostle  affirms  it.  But  who  is  ignorant  of  the 
fulness  of  meaning,  which  often  inheres  in  the  words  of  holy 
scripture  ?  Bishop  Middleton  has  well  expressed  the  prin- 
ciple, which  is  applicable  here.  He  observes,  tiiat  there  are 
many  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  are  capable  of 
a  twofold  application ;  being  directly  applicable  to  circum- 
stances then  past,  or  present,  or  soon  to  be  accomplished  ; 
and  indirectly  to  others,  which  divine  providence  was  about 
to  develope  under  a  future  dispensation.  Bloomfield,;}:  while 
pointing  out  the  peculiar  resemblances  between  Moses  and 
Christ,  admits  that,  after  all,  this  reference  may  not  have 
been  directly  in  view,  and  accordingly,  that  this  may  be  of 
the  number  of  those  passages,  to  which  bishop  Middleton 
refers,  as  being  capable  of  a  twofold  application.  Dr.  J.  A. 
Alexanderg  says,  that  one  of  the  most  plausible  interpreta- 
tions of  this  passage  is,  that  it  contains  the  promise  of  a  con- 

*  Contra  Celsum,  1.  1.  t  Acts  iii.  22.  %  In  loc. 

I  Introduction  to  Earl.  Proph.  Is.  p.  12. 


LAWS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    HEBREWS.  627 

Btant  succession  of  inspired  men,  of  which  succession  Christ 
himself  was  to  be  the  greatest.  The  word  plausible  here  is 
rather  ambiguous  ;  but  it  is  evident,  that  the  learned  professor 
inclines  to  the  belief,  that  the  interpretation  is  just,  as  well  as 
plausible.  This  is  the  decided  opinion  of  Michaelis,*  in 
which  I  fully  concur.  Bej^ond  a  doubt,  there  is  a  double 
reference  in  the  passage,  viz.  to  the  Messiah,  and  to  the  whole 
line  of  divinelj"-  inspired  prophets  under  the  Hebrew  theo- 
cracy. One  of  these  references  did  not  suit  the  purpose  of 
Peter,  while  the  other  did.  He  takes  that  which  is  in  point, 
without  alluding  to  that  which  is  not.  But  his  use  of  the  one 
reference  is  not,  upon  any  just  principles  of  interpretation, 
exclusive  of  the  other.  If  a  single  prophet  only  is  intended, 
and  that  one  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  context  seems  to  be 
without  meaning,  and  the  whole  passage  out  of  joint.  The 
words,  then,  are  to  be  regarded  as  a  record  of  the  institution 
of  a  permanentorderof  men  in  the  Israelitish  commonwealth, 
of  whom  Jesus  Christ,  as  he  would  resemble  Moses  in  being 
the  minister  of  a  new  dispensation  and  in  his  intimate  com- 
munication with  God,  would  at  the  same  time  be  the  greatest 
and  the  most  illustrious. 

3.  Two  tests  only  of  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  claim  to 
prophetical  inspiration  are  here  recognized,  viz.  first,  whether 
the  prophet  spake  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  or  of  false  gods ; 
and,  secondly,  whether  or  not  a  future  event,  foretold  by  him, 
happened  according  to  his  word.  Miracles  could  not  be  de- 
manded of  him  in  proof  of  a  divine  commission  to  speak  in  the 
name  of  Jehovah.  The  power  of  working  wonders  did  not 
inhere  in  his  ofiicial  designation.  As  long,  therefore,  as  a 
pretending  prophet  was  not  convicted  of  being  a  lying  pro- 
phet, he  was  to  be  tolerated,  and  was  to  go  unpunished, 
although  he  should  have  threatened  calamity  or  even  destruc- 
tion to  the  state.  Whoever  prophecied  in  the  name  of  the 
true  God,  must  be  borne  with,  until  an  unfulfilled  prediction 

*  Comment.  Art  36. 


628  COMMENTARIES    CTST   THE 

proved  him  to  be  an  impostor.*  The  trial  of  Jereniiali,  as 
related  in  the  twenty-sixth  chapter  of  his  prophecies,  casts  a 
strong  light  upon  this  subject.  He  had  publicly  foretold  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  For  this  he  was  seized,  and  ar- 
raigned before  the  princes,  or  senate,  as  worthy  of  death. 
He  offered  no  other  defence  than  that  the  Lord  had  sent  him 
to  speak  as  he  had,  and  he  was  willing  to  die  in  attestation 
of  the  truth  of  what  he  affirmed ;  only  he  added,  by  way  of 
warning,  that,  if  they  put  him  to  death,  they  would  surely 
bring  innocent  blood  upon  themselves.  He  had  done 
nothing,  which,  by  the  law  of  Moses,  merited  death,  or  even 
censure.  He  had  predicted  evil  to  the  state,  but  that  was 
not  a  crime,  unless  he  had  spoken  it  presumptuously.  He 
might,  indeed,  be  a  false  prophet,  in  which  case  he  would  be 
worthy  of  death ;  but  as  yet  there  was  no  proof  of  it.  Tf  it 
was  not  a  crime  to  be  a  prophet,  it  was  not  a  crime  to  predict 
calamity,  for  nations  do  not  always  experience  good  fortune. 
It  was  his  duty  to  foretell  the  truth,  just  as  it  had  been  re- 
vealed to  him,  whether  it  was  agreeable  or  disagreeable.  It 
is  remarkable,  that  there  were  prophets  among  his  accusers ; 
how  many  is  not  stated,  but  apparently  not  a  few.  The 
court,  after  hearing  the  case,  rendered  a  judgment  of  acquit- 
tal, on  the  ground  both  of  law  and  precedent.  They  aver, 
in  their  judgment,  that  Jeremiah  had  spoken  in  the  name  of 
Jehovah,  as  the  law  required,  and  that  the  fact  of  his  fore- 
telling evil  cannot  be  imputed  as  a  crime,  since  other  pro- 
phets had  done  the  same  without  rebuke,  of  which  they  cite 
a  memorable  instance.  And  so  the  case  was  dismissed,  and 
the  accused  set  at  liberty.  Tlie  history  of  the  procedure  is 
very  interesting,  and  the  reader  is  requested  to  peruse  it  for 
himself. 

4.  So  far  as  the  right  of  interdiction  by  man  was  con- 
cerned, this  law  gave  a  very  broad  liberty  to  the  exercise  of 
the  prophetical  office.     Undoubtedly  there  could  be  no  right, 

*  Mich.  Comment.  Art.  36. 


LAWS   OF   THE    ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  629 

in  the  sight  of  God,  to  assume  this  office,  without  a  true 
divine  commission  and  a  supernatural  divine  inspiration. 
But,  so  far  as  his  fellow-citizens  were  concerned,  every  man, 
whatever  his  birth,  tribe,  calling,  or  fortune  might  be,  could 
say,  "1  am  a  prophet."  He  could  proclaim  to  the  people 
the  consequences  of  their  iniquities,  and  freely  censure  the 
conduct  of  the  magistrates,  of  the  priests,  of  the  senators,  of 
the  kings,  of  all.  He  could  speak,  preach,  exhort,  reprove, 
and  fulminate;  and  no  man  had  the  right  to  close  his  mouth. 
On  the  contrary,  both  citizens  and  rulers  were  bound  to  listen 
to  him,  when  his  voice  was  raised  against  corruptions  and 
abuses,  and  in  favor  of  the  just  and  the  right.*  There  is  no 
need  to  cite  examples  of  the  boldness  and  energy,  with  which 
the  prophets  reproved  the  sins  of  all,  from  the  highest  to  the 
lowest.  Kathan  dared  to  say  to  David,  "  Thou  art  the 
man."f  Isaiah  addressed  the  rulers  as  rebellious,  as  com- 
panions of  thieves,  as  loving  bribes,  and  as  following  after 
rewards.:}:  Ezekiel  speaks  of  the  princes  as  resembling 
wolves  ravening  for  their  prey,  in  their  eagerness  to  shed 
blood  and  get  dishonest  gain.§  Zephaniah  represents  the 
princes  of  Israel  as  roaring  lions,  her  judges  as  evening 
wolves,  her  prophets  as  treacherous  persons,  and  her  priests 
as  doing  violence  to  the  law.|  Malachi  charges  upon  the 
whole  nation  the  crime  of  robbing  God.^ 

5.  This  liberty,  however,  was  restrained  by  a  severe  penalty, 
to  be  inflicted  upon  the  false  prophet.  The  prophet,  who 
presumed  to  speak  without  a  commission  from  God,  was  to  be 
punished  with  death.  The  falsity  of  his  claim  to  the  prophetic 
inspiration  could  be  evinced  by  proving,  either  that  he  had 
prophecied  in  the  name  of  strange  gods,  or  that  he  had  uttered 
a  prediction,  which  was  fiilsified  by  the  event.  The  reader, 
who   would   see   the  justice   of   so   severe   a  penalty   fully 


*  Salv.  1.  2,  c.  3.  t  2  Sam.  xii.  7.  X  Is.  i.  23. 

^  Ezek.  xxii.  27.  j|  Zeph.  iii.  3,  4.  ^  MaL  iu.  8. 


630  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  Moses.  The  assumption  of 
the  prophetic  office  without  authority  was  a  species  of  treason 
in  the  Israel itish  state  ;  and  besides  this,  mischiefs  of  a  fearful 
magnitude  flowed  both  from  the  public  predictions  of  false 
prophets,  and  from  the  secret  practice  of  superstitious  arts, 
such  as  fortune-telling,  astrology,  and  divinations  of  all  sorts. 

6.  The  passage  under  consideration  affords  solid  ground  for 
belief  in  the  supernatural  inspiration  of  the  true  prophets  ot 
Jehovah.  What  legislator,  not  bereft  of  the  last  spark  of  justice 
and  humanity,  would  punish  with  death  a  mere  error  in  judg- 
ment? Yet  this  charge  is  in  effect  brought  against  Moses  by 
those,  who  represent  the  Hebrew  prophets  as  nothing  more 
than  sagacious  men,  whose  natural  perspicacity  enabled  them  to 
foresee  and  predict  future  events ;  men  endowed,  in  a  superior 
degree,  with  the  faculties  of  reason,  imagination,  and  genius. 
Could  there  be  a  clearer  proof,  if  not  that  the  prophets  were 
supernaturally  inspired,  at  least  that  Moses  and  his  countrymen 
thought  so  ?  Unless,  indeed,  we  are  willing  to  suppose,  that 
the  lawgiver  himself  rather  deserved  the  punishment,  which 
he  threatened  against  the  violators  of  his  law. 

Upon  the  whole,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  the  prophetical 
office  was  designed  to  be  a  great  and  influential  element  in 
the  Hebrew  government.  The  seventy  elders,  chosen  as 
assistants  to  Moses  in  the  valley  of  Paran,  were  divinely 
inspired  men,  and  spake  to  the  people  under  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  From  the  very  foundation  of  the  state,  teachers 
supernaturally  enlightened  were  appointed  to  instruct  the 
people  in  religion,  virtue,  and  law ;  and,  in  the  darkest  periods 
of  the  Hebrew  history,  God  left  not  himself  without  inspired 
witnesses  to  the  truth.  At  length  there  appeared  what  have 
been  called  schools  of  the  prophets,  that  is,  companies  of 
young  men,  taught  and  disciplined  under  the  direction  of 
Samuel  and  other  aged  prophets,  who  succeeded  him.  Not 
that  the  art  of  prophecy  became  a  brand)  of  Hebrew  education. 
Three  principal  objects,  we  may  reasonably  conjecture,  the 


LAWS  OF  THE  ANCIENT  HEBREWS.  631 

youtns,  who  frequented  these  schools,  had  in  view, — the 
improvement  of  their  minds,  growth  in  piety,  and  knowledge 
of  the  Mosaic  law.  From  among  the  persons  thus  disciplined 
and  instructed,  the  prophets  were  ordinarily,  though  not 
uniformly,  selected  by  God,  who  communicated  to  them,  in 
addition  to  the  qualifications  for  the  prophetical  office  thus 
acquired,  the  gift  of  inspiration.  It  was  of  the  utmost 
importance,  that  the  prophets  should  have  an  ample  and 
accurate  acquaintance  with  the  laws  of  Moses ;  and  it  was,  on 
many  accounts,  better  that  they  should  acquire  this  by  their 
own  study,  than  by  immediate  inspiration. 

It  would  naturally  be  expected,  that,  under  a  law  like  that 
which  we  have  been  examining,  the  prophets,  true  and 
pretended,  would  form  a  numerous  body  in  the  state.  And 
such  was  undoubtedly  the  case.  Every  city  had  its  prophets, 
who,  says  Calmtt,*  in  the  public  assemblies  on  the  sabbath, 
at  the  new  moons,  and  in  the  solemn  convocations,  preached 
to  the  people,  and  reproved  the  various  disorders  and  abuses, 
which  appeared  in  the  nation.  Ezekiel  has  indicated,  in 
a  manner  extremely  elegant  and  poetical,  the  duties  of  a 
prophet,  under  the  Mosaic  economy.f  The  prophets  served 
as  a  counterpoise  to  the  influence  of  the  priests,  the  magistrates, 
and  the  senate  itself,  which  rarely  omitted,  on  important 
occasions,  to  call  for  the  advice  of  one  or  more  of  the  most 
renowned  of  these  inspired  men. 

Among  sucli  a  crowd  of  popular  preachers  and  orators,  it 
will  readily  be  imagined,  tliat  multitudes  were  mere  pre- 
tenders; and  that  there  was  but  a  feeble  minority  of  divinely 
commissioned  prophets.  The  mass  spake  without  divine  light 
and  guidance.  Profaning  the  name  of  Jehovah,  and  sacrific- 
ing the  welfare  of  the  state  to  their  private  interests,  they 
ignominiously  sold  both  their  consciences  and  their  discourses. 
Every  page  of  the  prophetical  writings  proves   this.     ''Thy 

*  Dissert,  on  the  Schools  of  the  Hebrews,  §  11 
f  Ezek.  xxxiii.  2,  seqq. 


632  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

prophets,"  cries  Jeremiah,  "  have  seen  vain  and  foolish  things 
for  thee;  and  they  have  not  discovered  thine  iniquity,  to 
turn  away  thy  captivity."  In  the  same  strain,  Ezekiel  inveighs 
against  the  prophets  who  daubed  with  untempered  mortar,  and 
divined  lies  ;  and  he  speaks  of  a  conspiracy  of  prophets,  who 
ravened  the  prey  like  a  roaring  lion,  and  filled  their  hands 
with  treasure  and  precious  things.  But  what  if  some  abuses 
grew  out  of  the  prophetical  institution  ?  It  is  better,  as  Sal- 
vador says,  to  give  free  course  to  torrents  of  vain  words,  than 
to  arrest  a  single  one,  about  to  be  uttered  by  a  true  messen- 
ger from  heaven. 


CHAPTEK  X. 

Conclusion. 

In  the  foregoing  pages,  I  have  offered  an  analysis  of  the 
Hebrew  constitution,  such  as  I  conceive  it  to  have  been, 
when  it  came  from  the  hand  of  the  inspired  Hebrew  law- 
giver. The  constitution  contained  a  provision  that,  when  the 
Israelites  came  into  the  promised  land,  it  should  be  submitted 
to  the  people,  and  formally  accepted  by  them  all.  They 
were  to  be  assembled  in  an  amphitheatre  formed  by  two 
mountains, — Ebal,  a  bleak,  frowning  rock,  towering  on  one 
side,  and  Gerizim,  springing  up  covered  with  verdure  and 
beauty  on  the  other.  The  one  height  was  a  prophetic  monu- 
ment of  the  prosperity  and  loveliness,  which  would  follow 
the  observance  of  these  institutions  ;  the  other,  of  the  barren- 
ness and  desolation,  which  a  disregard  of  the  constitution 
would  inevitabl}'  bring  upon  the  nation.  There  the  tribes, 
when   the   proper   time   came,  were  ranged   iu  order,  and 


LAWS    OF   THE   AJSTCIENT   HEBREWS.  $S9 

listened  to  its  provisions ;  and  there  they  signified  their 
acceptance  of  it,  by  an  act  of  free  choice,  which  was  binding 
on  them  and  their  children  for  ever.* 

The  Hebrew  constitution,  in  its  substance  and  its  forms,  iu 
its  letter  and  its  spirit,  was  eminently  republican.  The 
power  of  the  people  was  great  and  controlling.  This  point 
is  clear,  even  on  a  superficial  examination  of  the  subject. 
But  not  only  so  ;  it  had  also  important  and  striking  analogies 
with  our  own  constitution,  and  with  that  other  free  constitu- 
tion, fi'om  which  ours,  iu  its  most  essential  features,  was 
taken  ;  a  constitution,  which  Montesquieu  erroneously  repre- 
sents as  drawn  from  the  woods  of  Germany,  but  which  Sal- 
vador, and  truly  without  doubt,  regards  as  derived  from  the 
Hebrew  fountains.  "Whoever  attentively  considers  the  He- 
brew and  British  constitutions,  and  still  more  the  Hebrew 
and  American  constitutions,  cannot  but  be  impressed  with 
the  resemblance  between  them.  Their  fundamental  princi- 
ples are  identical ;  and  many  of  the  details  of  organization 
are  the  same  or  similar.  The  rights  of  every  person  in  the 
Hebrew  state,  from  the  head  of  the  nation  to  the  humblest 
stranger,  were  accurately  defined  and  carefully  guarded. 
Even  Ahab,  an  unp/incij-led  tyrant,  dared  not  invade  the 
field  of  a  vine-dresser,  thuugh  the  want  of  it  was  so  keenly 
felt  as  to  make  him  refuse  his  ordinary  food  ;  and  his  still 
more  tyrannical  and  unprincipled  queen,  Jezebel,  knew  no 
method  of  compassing  the  same  end,  but  through  the  per- 
verted forms  of  law  and  justice.f  Every  man  was,  in  a  poli- 
tical sense,  on  an  equality  with  the  most  exalted  of  the 
nation.  The  rulers  were  raised  to  the  dignities  which  they 
enjoyed,  by  the  free  6ufi*rages  of  their  fellow  citizens.  The 
laws,  though  proposed  by  God,  were  approved  and  enacted 
by  the  people,  through  their  representatives,  in  the  states- 
general  of  Israel.  The  Israelites  exercised  the  right  of  meet- 
ing in  primary  assembliee,  of  discussing  questions  of  public 

*  See  Chr  Exam,  for  Sept.  1838.  f  1  Kings  ^^ 


634  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

policy,  and  ol  petitioning  their  rulers  for  the  redress  of  griev- 
ances. Every  Hebrew  citizen  was  eligible  to  the  highest 
civil  dignities,  even  to  that  of  the  royal  purple.  The  whole 
nation  constituted  a  republic  of  freemen,  equal  originally 
even  in  property,  equal  in  j^olitical  dignity  and  privilege, 
equal  in  their  social  standing,  and  equally  entitled  to  the 
care  and  protection  of  the  government. 

The  Hebrew  polity  was  essentially  a  system  of  self-govern- 
ment. It  was  the  government  of  individual  independence, 
municipal  independence,  and  state  independence, — subject 
only  to  so  much  of  central  control,  as  was  necessary  to  con- 
stitute a  true  nationality,  and  to  provide  for  the  general 
defence  and  welfare.  Centralization  was  eminently  foreign 
to  its  spirit.  The  local  governments  loom  out  under  the 
Mosaic  constitution ;  the  central  government  is  proportion- 
ably  overshadowed.  Herein  the  Hebrew  constitution  re- 
markably resembles  our  own,  and  as  remarkably  differs  from 
other  ancient  polities.  All  the  ancient  Asiatic  governments, 
and  most  of  the  European,  were  great  centralizers.  With 
them,  almost  every  thing  originated  and  terminated  in  a 
centre.  The  Greek  democracies  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as 
an  exception  to  this  rule ;  the  Koman  commonwealth  cer- 
tainly was  not. 

Public  opinion  was  a  powerful  element  in  the  Hebrew 
government.  This  gave  shape  and  force  both  to  the  natiosal 
and  provincial  administrations.  Let  any  one  read  the  He- 
brew history  with  this  in  his  mind,  and  he  will  see  proofs  of 
it  in  every  page.  If  called  upon  for  a  single  decisive  proof 
of  the  strength  of  the  popular  will  under  this  constitution,  I 
would  select  the  change  in  the  government  from  the  repub- 
lican to  the  regal  form.  Samuel  was  against  this  change. 
The  oracle  was  against  it.*  The  council  of  Moses  was 
against  it.  The  opinion  and  practice  of  a  long  line  of  illus- 
trious chiefs  were  against  it.     It  is  a  reasonable  presumption, 

*  The  oracle  did,  indeed,  give  its  assent;  but  reluctantly. 


LAWS    OF   THE    AIJCIENT   HEBREWS.  635 

that  a  strong  party  of  the  wisest  spirits  of  the  state  was  against 
it.  Yet  the  change  was  made.  How  and  why  ?  The  people 
willed  it ;  the  people  decreed  it ;  and  so  it  was.  What  more 
pregnant  argument  could  there  be  of  the  authority  and  energy, 
with  which  the  collective  will  of  the  nation  uttered  and  en- 
forced its  resolves  ?  The  quiet  submission  of  the  whole  nation 
to  the  will  of  the  majority,  after  the  intense  excitement  of  the 
struggle,  through  which  it  must  have  passed,  reminds  me 
more  strongly  than  any  thing  else  in  history,  of  a  presiden- 
tial election  among  ourselves,  which  is  ever  accompanied 
with  a  like  convulsion  of  the  public  mind,  and  a  like  subse- 
quent acquiescence  and  repose  of  the  defeated  party. 

It  is  an  admitted  fact,  that  the  tendency  of  all  the  modern 
improvements  in  government  is  to  equalize  the  conditions  of 
men,  and  so  to  bring  about  that  general  social  intercourse,  by 
which  many  of  the  most  important  principles  and  habits  are 
formed  and  fixed,  and  the  masses  of  society  are  elevated, 
humanized,  and  refined.  To  secure  these  great  ends,  many 
bloody  wars  have  been  waged,  and  countless  treasures  ex- 
pended. But  all  these  struggles  and  expenditures  have  not 
yet,  in  the  particulars  just  indicated,  brought  modern  society 
to  that  point,  where  Moses  fixed  his  people,  in  an  age,  when 
even  the  Greeks  and  the  Eomans  were  still  savages  and  bar- 
barians. Privileged  classes,  enjoying  the  benefit  of  milder 
laws  and  special  exemptions,  were  unknown  to  the  Mosaic  con- 
stitution. Neither  patent  of  nobility  nor  benefit  of  clergy 
found  any  place  among  its  provisions.  And  civil  liberty, 
according  to  the  notion  of  it  presented  in  the  excellent  defi- 
nitions of  Blackstone,  Paley,  and  other  approved  writers  on 
public  law,  that  it  is  no  other  than  natural  liberty,  so  far  re- 
strained by  human  laws  (and  no  farther),  as  is  necessary  and 
expedient  for  the  general  advantage  of  the  public  ;  that  it  is 
the  not  being  restrained  by  any  law,  but  what  conduces  in  a 
greater  degree  to  the  public  welfare ;  and  that  it  consists  in 
a  freedom  from  all  restraints,  except  such  as  established  law 


636  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

imposes  for  the  good  of  the  commnnitj  ; — liberty,  I  say,  thus 
regulated  by  law,  with  the  superadded  idea,  that  the  restrain- 
ing laws  should  be  equal  to  all,  was  as  fully  developed  and 
secured  by  the  Hebrew  constitution,  as  by  any  other  known 
system  of  government  in  the  world.  The  great  natural  rights 
of  personal  security,  in  respect  to  life,  limb,  health,  and  re- 
putation ;  of  personal  liberty,  in  respect  to  locomotion, 
residence,  education,  and  the  choice  of  occupation  ;  and  of 
private  property,  in  the  free  use,  enjoyment,  and  disposal  of 
all  acquisitions,  without  any  control  or  diminution,  save  by 
the  laws  of  the  land, — were  recognized  and  guarded,  in  the 
amplest  manner,  by  the  laws  and  constitution  of  Moses. 
And  these  absolute  and  paramount  rights  were  protected,  and 
their  inviolability  maintained,  by  other  subordinate  rights  : — 
the  I'ight  of  representation  in  the  congregation  of  Israel ; 
the  right  of  a  speedy  and  impartial  administration  of  justice 
through  the  courts ;  and  the  right  of  petitioning  the  public 
authorities  for  the  redress  of  wrongs,  where  other  means  of 
establishing  the  right  were  inadequate  to  the  purpose.  Such 
were  the  liberties  of  a  Hebrew  citizen  ;  such  the  barriers,  by 
which  they  were  defended  ;  such  the  inestimable  system  of 
public  polity  and  law,  which  spread  its  ample  and  beneficent 
protection  over  the  humblest  and  meanest,  as  well  as  the 
most  exalted  and  honored  member  of  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel. 

The  two  greatest  interests  of  a  state,  and  yet  the  two  in- 
terests most  difficult  to  be  harmonized, — permanence  and  pro- 
gress,— were  as  wisely  provided  for  and  as  effectually  secured 
by  the  Mosaic  S3^stem  of  government,  as  by  any  other  civil 
constitution  in  the  world  :  the  former,  by  its  regulations  re- 
epecting  the  distribution  and  tenure  of  landed  property ;  the 
latter,  by  the  three  annual  assemblages  of  the  nation, 
whereby  there  was  kept  up  a  continual  circulation  of  ideas 
between  all  parts  of  the  country  :  and  both,  by  the  institu- 


LAWS    OF  THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  63T 

and  progressive ;  con-servative,  by  its  duty  to  teach,  interpret, 
and  maintain  the  laws  ;  progressive,  by  its  obligation  to  de- 
vote itself  to  the  cultivation  of  science  and  letters. 

Is  it  not  a  fact  well  worthy  to  arrest  attention,  that,  in  the 
midst  of  barbarism  and  darkness,  hearing  no  sounds  but 
those  of  violence,  and  seeing  no  soil  which  was  not  drenched 
with  blood,  a  legislator  should  have  founded  a  government  on 
principles  of  peace,  justice,  equality,  humanity,  liberty,  and 
social  order,  carried  out  as  far  as  in  the  freest  governments, 
now  existing  among  men  ?  This  would  be  an  inexplicable 
mystery,  on  any  other  theory  than  that  of  a  supernatural  re- 
velation to  the  lawgiver.  The  reality  of  the  divine  legation 
of  Moses  might  be  rested  on  this  argument  alone.  And 
whoever  holds  to  the  divinity  of  his  mission,  and  therefore 
necessarily  believes,  that  a  constitutional  and  representative 
democracy  is  a  form  of  government,  stamped  with  the  seal  of 
the  divine  approbation,  while  the  monarchy  was  a  concession 
to  the  folly  of  the  people,  will  thence  derive  a  new  and  for- 
cible argument  to  cherish  and  defend  the  precious  charter  of 
our  own  liberties,  since  its  type  and  model  came  originally 
from  the  depths  of  the  divine  wisdom  and  goodness, 

I  have  sometimes  imagined  all  the  legislators  of  America 
gathered  into  one  vast  assemblage,  and  the  Jewish  lawgiver 
appearing  suddenly  in  their  midst.  "  Gentlemen,"  he  might 
say  to  them,  "at  length  my  word  is  fulfilled.  What  you 
boast  of  doing  now,  I  accomplished,  as  far  as  in  me  lay,  in 
a  distant  age.  I  broke  the  doors  of  the  house  of  bondage, 
and  proclaimed  the  principle  of  universal  equality  among 
men.  I  substituted  for  castes  and  privileged  classes,  a  nation 
of  freemen,  and  for  arbitrary  and  capricious  impositions,  tho 
reign  of  law,  equal  and  universal.  I  preferred  peace  to  war, 
general  competence  and  happiness  to  the  false  glory  of  arms, 
substantial  blessings  to  airy  nothings.  My  highest  efforts 
were  constantly  directed  to  procure  for  all  the  citizens  the 
greatest  equality   practicable,   both   of  the   labors  and   en- 


638  COMMENTARIES   ON   THE 

joyments  of  life ;  for  the  whole  commonwealth  of  Israel, 
lands  well  cultivated,  good  habitations,  rich  herds,  and  a  po- 
pulation healthy,  numerous,  enlightened,  pious,  and  con- 
tented. It  is  false,  what  ignorance  and  irreligion  have  charged 
against  me,  that  I  held  in  abhorrence,  after  the  example  of 
Egypt,  foreign  nations.  No  other  legislator  in  the  world 
has  ever  shown  to  the  stranger  an  equal  justice,  an  equal  ten- 
derness, with  myself.  Nor  is  this  all :  I  earnestly  labored  to 
secure  a  universal  intellectual  equality.  Far  from  being 
jealous  of  the  superiority,  which  God  and  the  discipline  of 
my  faculties  had  given  me,  I  nourished  the  animating  hope, 
that  all  the  lights,  which  I  possessed,  would  one  day  become 
the  common  property  of  all,  even  the  humblest  of  my  fellow- 
creatures.  Laws, — not  men, — were  the  rulers  of  ray  repub- 
lic ;  CONSENT,  —  not  force,  —  the  basis  of  my  government. 
Conquests,  and  servitude ;  magnificent  palaces,  and  servi- 
tude ;  boundless  luxury,  and  servitude  ;  brilliant  spectacles, 
and  servitude  ;  a  certain  amount  of  science,  and  still  servi- 
tude ; — behold  a  brief  but  true  picture  of  the  governments, 
by  which  I  was  surrounded.  It  is  a  libel  upon  my  name  and 
memory  to  charge  me  with  having  framed  my  institutions 
upon  the  model  of  those  stupendous  systems  of  fraud  and 
tyranny.  By  the  wisdom  of  my  counsels  and  the  energy  of 
mj  policy,  I  overthrew,  at  a  blow,  the  whole  degrading  ap- 
paratus of  political  jugglery  and  priestly  despotism.  I 
reduced  the  speculative  ideas  of  my  own  and  the  preceding 
ages  to  a  single  sublime  principle  of  simplicity.  I  recognized 
the  happiness  and  well-being  of  the  people,  as  the  one 
supreme  law  of  political  philosophy.  By  the  institutions 
founded  upon  this  principle,  I  impressed  a  new  character 
upon  my  age  and  species ;  I  gave  a  new  impulse  to  man, 
both  in  his  individual  and  social  energies  ;  I  fixed  upon  ray 
labors  the  indestructible  seal  of  a  divine  wisdom  and  bene- 
ficence. Forward,  then,  gentlemen,  without  fear  or  faltering, 
in  the  doctrine  of  Jehovah, — in  those  great  principles  of  free 


LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBREWS.  639 

and  equal  government,  wliich,  taught  by  the  Divine  Spirit, 
I  first  protaulgated  to  the  world  ;  and  to  which,  after  so  many 
ages  of  tyranny  and  misgovernment,  you  have  at  length 
••eturned.  Cling  to  these  principles,  legislators  of  a  world 
that  had  no  being  when  I  founded  my  republic.  Give  them 
a  broader  development,  a  higher  activity  ;  and  the  civilization, 
the  prosperity,  the  happiness  flowing  from  them,  shall  out- 
strip your  fondest  hopes,  and  more  than  realize  the  brightest 
vision  of  bard  or  prophet," 

Such  is  the  spirit  that  speaks  to  us,  of  this  distant  age  and 
clime,  in  the  Mosaic  constitution.  It  is  a  spirit  of  faith, 
hope,  charity.  There  are  some,  who  entertain  apprehensions 
concerning  the  issue  of  our  political  experiment,  and  who 
doubt  the  capacity  of  tlie  people  for  self-government.  For 
myself,  I  have  no  such  fears.  My  faith  in  our  institutions 
has  been  strengthened  by  my  study  of  the  Hebrew  constitu- 
tion. I  have  seen  with  surprize  and  delight,  that  the  essen- 
tial principles  of  our  constitution  are  identical  with  those  of  a 
political  system,  which  emanated  from  a  superhuman  wis- 
dom, and  was  established  by  the  authority  of  the  supreme 
ruler  of  the  world.  I  accept  this  knowledge  as  a  pledge,  that 
these  principles  are  destined,  in  the  good  providence  of  God, 
to  a  universal  triumph.  Men  are  capable  of  governing  them- 
selves ;  such  is  the  decision  of  the  infinite  intelligence. 
Tyranny  will  every  where  come  to  an  end ;  humanity  will 
recover  its  rights  ;  and  the  entire  race  of  mankind  will  exult 
in  the  enjoyment  of  freedom  and  happiness.  Futurity  is  big 
with  events  of  momentous  import ;  events,  I  verily  believe, 
compared  with  which  the  grandest  and  the  sublimest,  hitherto 
inscribed  upon  the  rolls  of  tame,  are  but  as  insignificant 
trifles.  But  this  better  future,  for  which  our  nature  sighs,  and 
to  which  it  is  evidently  tending,  "  is  not  a  tree  transplanted 
from  paradise,  with  all  its  branches  in  full  fruitage.  It  was 
not  sowed  in  sunshine.  It  is  not  in  vernal  breezes  and  gentle 
rains,  that  its  roots  are  fixed,  and  its  growth  and  strength 


640  LAWS   OF   THE   ANCIENT   HEBKEW8. 

insured.  With  blood  was  it  planted.  It  is  rocked  in  tern 
pests.  Deep  scars  are  on  its  trnnk,  and  the  path  of  the 
lightning  may  be  traced  among  its  branches."  But,  through 
storm  and  darkness,  amid  blood  and  carnage,  the  political 
redemption  of  our  race  holds  on  its  course.  Liberty  and 
law,  Christianity  and  science,  religion  and  learning  are  yet  to 
enjoy  a  universal  triumph,  to  sway  a  universal  sceptre.  The 
day  is  to  come,  when  human  na.ture,  relieved  from  the  pres- 
sure imposed  upon  it  by  the  abuses  of  ancient  dynasties, 
shall  start  afresh,  with  unimpeded  and  elastic  tread,  on  its 
destined  race  of  improvement  and  perfectibility.  Thanks  bo 
to  God  for  that  rainbow  of  promise,  with  which  the  civil 
polity  of  Moses  has  spanned  the  political  heavens  ! 


,-'^ 


Date  Due 

da  ^     ' 

» 

M\t  1  "1     *Ai 

Je  .<? . .    •  . 

^'^^1 

i^^sew^ 

« 

te£sse» 

^ci  fcibraf> 

(/f«:^ 

/P,    ■•    ;'7 

J/.          ■ 

6^ 

:-y<'   A^i'' 

^ 

